Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Tuesday next, at seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Maiden Island Thermonuclear Explosion

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Minister of State for Defence when the last British thermonuclear device was exploded above Maiden Island; and what radiation hazards exist there today.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): The last British test of a thermonuclear device above Maiden Island took place on 19th June, 1957. We have no evidence of any radiation hazard there today.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): The last British test of a thermonuclear device above Maiden Island took place on 19th June, 1957. We have no evidence of any radiation hazard there today.

Mr. Reed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I was at these tests and that very shortly after the third detonation I landed on the island and swam in the sea there? Will he agree that the fact that I am alive and kicking today suggests that such tests can be completed with relatively little danger and that all the fuss made about the French tests in this area is so much ballyhoo?

Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend is correct that there was no radioactive hazard immediately after the tests and I am advised that this means that there could not subsequently have been any radiation hazard.

Mr. Dalyell: I was going to ask what recent evidence there was of radiation hazard, but it is covered by the answer.

Missile Programme

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's participation in, and proposals for, a multiple independent targeted re-entry vehicle missile programme.

Lord Balniel: Measures to maintain the effectiveness of the Polaris force are kept under continuing review but it would not be in the public interest to disclose information about them.

Mr. Huckfield: Can the Minister say that there is no possibility of Britain participating at least in a research programme? Can he say also that there is no intention by Britain to "MIRV" the weapons which Polaris submarines carry as there is a danger and a possibility that this will be done by the United States?

Lord Balniel: I cannot give that assurance because I cannot disclose information on this kind of subject. The House will appreciate that the effect of the deterrent policy would be reduced substantially if we were to release information which would enable a potential aggressor to assess the risk from that deterrent.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Do the SALT talks in any way prevent the provision of further United States nuclear knowledge to Britain? If so, would not the cost of providing a new generation of British nuclear weapons be absolutely ruinous?

Lord Balniel: These are such highly technical matters that I would be grateful if the hon. Member would put down a specific question about them. I can assure him that in the review which we are undertaking we have very much in mind the implications of the strategic arms limitation agreement.

Mr. Hattersley: I know that the right hon. Gentleman accepts freely that any conversion of the Polaris fleet would have to be decided a number of years before it was put into effect. Can we be assured that if and when that decision is made by the Government the House of Commons will be told?

Lord Balniel: The House of Commons will be given the appropriate information by the Government of the day.

Naval Vessels (Nuclear-Powered Engines)

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will ensure that in future the majority of ships laid down for the Royal Navy are designed with nuclear-powered engines; and if he will make a statement on what proportion of ships planned for delivery in the next five years are so designed.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Peter Kirk): No, Sir. Nuclear propulsion in the Royal Navy will be restricted, for the foreseeable future, to Polaris and Fleet submarines. Fleet submarines comprise about a quarter of the naval warships planned for delivery in the next five years.

Mr. Loveridge: I was glad to hear what my hon. Friend said about submarines. Is he fully aware of the advantages available, at practical costs, of ships whose cruising speeds approximate to their maximum speeds, and, if he is, will he do as the great Winston Churchill did before him and provide the most modern fuel base for the Royal Navy to replace fuels which are almost as archaic as coal?

Mr. Kirk: We provide the most modern practical fuel base in gas turbine engines. The cost of nuclear power for surface ships is far too high to consider at the moment.

NATO (Naval Exercises)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation naval exercise which is to take place in the Atlantic this year.

Lord Balniel: In September NATO will mount a major land, sea and air exercise called "Strong Express", designed to test and develop NATO capabilities for rapid reaction and reinforcement to strengthen the alliance's defensive posture in time of emergency.

Mr. Allaun: Is not this the biggest naval exercise ever held by NATO? Is it merely untimely or is it deliberately calculated to prejudice the mutual balanced force reductions which we hope will result from the East-West security conference?

Lord Balniel: It is certainly an important and major NATO exercise. NATO is a defensive alliance and it has played its part, as it will continue to play its part, to achieve a relaxation of tension in Europe. I am sure, however, that the hon. Member will agree that détente will not be obtained or maintained by the military balance unless we have an adequate defence in NATO and it is to test the defence of NATO that the exercise is being undertaken.

Mr. Wilkinson: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether the recent dispatch of marine commandos to Ulster will affect the current exercise commitments of the alliance this summer?

Lord Balniel: No, the planned deployment of commandos is for a short time.

Northern Ireland

Mr. Duffy: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.

Lord Balniel: The Army continues to help the civil authorities to keep the peace by countering terrorism and preventing inter-communal clashes.

Mr. Duffy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those hon. Members on this side of the House who were in Dublin this week met everywhere understanding of the rôle of the British Army in Ireland and a deep concern and sympathy for the unenviable task of the individual soldier? Does he not think, therefore, that it is all the more disturbing that an academic study in this month's issue of the Economic and Social Review should suggest that the Army has passed from the rôle of independent peace-keeping to one-sided peace enforcement? Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that nothing is done that might appear to lend credence to this most unfortunate suggestion?

Lord Balniel: I am appreciative of the tribute which the hon. Gentleman paid to the British Forces serving in Northern Ireland. I have not read the article to which he refers, but certainly the intention and aim of the Army is to remain utterly impartial and to be seen to be utterly impartial. I believe that this is


generally recognised by all objective people in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kilfedder: Does not my right hon. Friend feel grave concern at the skilful way in which the IRA is using the news media to turn every incident into a propaganda attack upon the troops, and the manner in which it makes use of the local population, for instance in the Lenadoon estate, to restrict military activity where the IRA is in a weak position and where it could be routed?

Lord Balniel: When my hon. Friend refers to the Lenadoon incident he is quite correct. The current IRA propaganda is to lay the blame for the ending of the cease-fire on the shoulders of the Army. This is done with the intention of alienating the Army from the Catholic community. In that sense my hon. Friend is completely correct.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is to be a statement by the Secretary of State later.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of State for Defence what has been the total cost on the Ministry of Defence Vote to the latest available date of the operations in Ulster since August, 1969.

Lord Balniel: The extra cost which fell on defence Votes as a result of the operations in Ulster from August, 1969, to the end of March, 1972, is estimated at £22 million.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: That is a very high total. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is bound to escalate in the future, and that one of the most important steps one could take to help the army to decrease the number of troops which it has to have there is to set an early date for the elimination of the no-go areas? What date is he prepared to give to that?

Lord Balniel: Undoubtedly, there has been a high cost in terms of finance and in terms of lives in the attempt to preserve peace in Northern Ireland. I appreciate the concern which my hon. Friend expresses about the no-go areas. The army has the military power to remove any barricades, though at the risk of some civilian casualties. It is a difficult judgment. A basically military solution could

put at risk the wider political objective of reconciliation which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is attempting to achieve. There is a very difficult judgment here, and the Government have it constantly under review.

Mr. Stratton Mills: In the light of the recent toll of death, injury and bombing, what is the current Army profile? Is it based on a concept of searching out and destroying the IRA, or is it based on a concept of merely responding to specific instances of attack by the IRA in individual circumstances?

Lord Balniel: The instructions to the army are to respond to violence from whatever quarter it comes at the level which is considered necessary. At the same time, it must be made quite clear that violence will not succeed and the army can and will respond, as it did recently, in the Lenadoon estate.

Seawolf

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of Seawolf.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Ian Gilmour): The development programme of the Seawolf surface-to-air guided weapon system is proceeding satisfactorily, and encouraging initial trials results are being achieved.

Mr. Dalyell: When is it likely to come into service?

Mr. Gilmour: In the late 1970s.

Polaris

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future of Polaris as part of the British naval defence system.

Lord Balniel: The Polaris force will continue to form our contribution to the Western strategic nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Judd: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of anxiety about the deliberations which are known to be going on in the Ministry of Defence about the future of Polaris? Can he assure the House that we shall not drift into the commitment for a second generation Polaris before there has been an


opportunity for the fullest possible debate in the House in which we can evaluate all the implications, including those of the SALT agreement?

Lord Balniel: We shall not drift into any conclusions. The Government will consider the matter with the utmost care and with the greatest seriousness. It is always open to hon. Members in defence debates to discuss these issues, but the House will realise the difficulty of a Defence Minister giving information on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Burden: Does my right hon. Friend remember that the Opposition, when in opposition, always proposed that Polaris should be abandoned, and that when they had the responsibility of government they realised that it must be retained?

Lord Balniel: I appreciate that very well. I am slightly embarrassed at constantly having to remind the Opposition of these very well-known facts.

Mr. Booth: Since the Polaris submarines possessed by the United States Government are also part of the Western nuclear deterrent, would the right hon. Gentleman welcome an extension of the SALT agreement to embrace the British Polaris submarines?

Lord Balniel: The first phase of the strategic arms limitation agreement has been concluded. This was an agreement reached by the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It did not concern our own submarines.

Five Power Defence Agreement

Mr. Hattersley: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Five Power Defence Agreement between Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore.

Lord Balniel: The Five Power Defence arrangements, which came into operation on 1st November, 1971, are operating smoothly. They will continue so long as the partners need them.

Mr. Hattersley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what contingency plans are being made by the Ministry of Defence in preparation for the strong possibility that Australia will pull out in the autumn?

Lord Balniel: I do not know of that strong possibility. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Australian Prime Minister visited the Malaysian Government and that they issued a joint communiqué very recently in which the Prime Ministers of both Australia and Malaysia agreed
that the Five Power arrangements provide a framework for close and effective co-operation which is of value to both Governments.

Sir H. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that anybody who has visited these forces, as I have been fortunate to do, knows that the Australians play a very large part, and, indeed, we are glad that they do? As far as I can see, there will be very little likelihood of their pulling out because it would be greatly to their disadvantage if they did.

Lord Balniel: My hon. and gallant Friend speaks from first-hand experience and he correctly reflects the view of everybody in the Five Power Defence Agreement.

Motorised Transport (Purchase)

Mr. Carter: asked the Minister of State for Defence what changes he is contemplating in his Department's purchasing practices with regard to motorised transport; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: We propose to place greater emphasis in future upon purchasing commercial types of vehicle where this is possible, instead of developing vehicles specifically for military use. We are also paying more regard to the whole life cost of the vehicle.

Mr. Carter: In the light of that reply, would the Minister like categorically to deny that the Armed Forces in the future will be able to purchase foreign cars and lorries? Is he aware that the home industry can quite capably supply all the Armed Forces' needs of this description, particularly at a time of very high unemployment?

Mr. Gilmour: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we would consider buying foreign only when no suitable British vehicle existed.

Mr. Farr: What consideration is being given to improving motorised transport


available for our Forces in Northern Ireland, and in particular the armoured personnel carriers which are regarded as very suspect?

Mr. Gilmour: That is another question.

Recruiting (Nationality Rules)

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will review the regulations governing the entry into the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy of men and women whose parents were born in Communist countries.

Lord Balniel: The current rules on nationality for the Forces were introduced in September, 1965, after very careful consideration, and I see no need for a further review now.

Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what advice I can give to two young brothers in my constituency who have been refused commissions in the Royal Air Force because their father was born in Moscow? Is this not strange, as the father himself spent 22 years 133 days in the British Air Force, much of that time on secret work? Is that not an incredible situation which ought to be put right without delay?

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman knows the regulations, but I can assure him that the Secretary of State for Defence has power to waive regulations in suitable cases, and, indeed, does so. If the hon. Gentleman has an individual case which he would like to call to my attention, I will consider it very carefully.

Weapons (Standardisation)

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Minister of State for Defence (1) what action he is taking with the United Kingdom's North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies to rationalise and standardise weapons used by the Army and Royal Air Force;

(2) what action he is taking in regard to the co-ordination of shipbuilding of naval ships with the United Kingdom's North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: We have given strong support to a number of NATO efforts, such as those of the Conference of National Armaments Directors, which have the aim of promoting common operational concepts and requirements

and a greater measure of procurement co-operation and equipment standardisation. These NATO activities are being reinforced through the work of the Euro-group and by our many bilateral contacts with allies in Europe and elsewhere.

Dame Joan Vickers: Has my hon. Friend read the result of the conference that we had in Western European Union where the reply was given that it was too expensive to have an investigation into the standardisation of weapons? In Norway one has the British Royal Marines, Dutch commandos and the Americans, all with different types of weapons. This is very unfortunate. It would be much more economical if they could have the same sort of weapons.
As two Questions of mine are being answered, perhaps I may ask a second supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Looking at the list of ships, it takes a long time to build them, and surely there should be some collaboration in the number of frigates built so as not to have too many of one type of ship and not enough of the other.

Mr. Gilmour: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about standardisation, but I am sure that she appreciates that there are difficulties in relation to differing operational requirements and timing, and, in the naval sphere, different rôles for the navy. We are doing as much as we can to further collaboration.
We do not, of course, want too many of one ship and not enough of another, and we make our plans for the disposition of the Fleet on the basis of having the right number of ships. It is difficult, as my hon. Friend knows, to collaborate on the building of a ship; it is easier to collaborate on weapons systems.

Mr. John Morris: What new decisions have been taken by the present Government to develop standardised weapon systems since they have come into office?

Mr. Gilmour: I have previously explained to the right hon. Gentleman that we are making a number of efforts in this direction. Although he may claim paternity of most of the collaborative projects currently in operation, he knows that these projects have a long gestation period and, in fact, the paternity of some of them is doubtful.

Dame Joan Vickers: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Ministry Sub-contractors (Security Arrangements)

Mr. Aston: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with security arrangements with Ministry sub-contractors; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that the existing security arrangements are adequate.

Mr. Ashton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the contractors, a firm employed for cleaning the Department's offices, has had constant friction with the lady cleaners it employs on night work because of poor wages, long hours of work and its virulent anti-trade union activities? Is this in the best interests of security? Would it not be much better to go back to the old system under which the Ministry employed its cleaners direct as a category of civil servants?

Mr. Gilmour: I was not sure that cleaning was the precise subject of the Question. If the hon. Gentleman cares to send me details of his complaint, I will look into it.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is it not a fact that, if this firm is carrying on anti-trade union activities, its employees may now use the Industrial Relations Act to look after their interests?

Mr. Gilmour: That is true. My answer did not indicate that I accepted the premise on which the question was based.

Service Men Overseas (Pay and Allowances)

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: asked the Minister of State for Defence what steps he has taken to ensure that the pay and allowances of Service men overseas and in Her Majesty's ships shall not be adversely affected by the floating of the £ sterling.

Lord Balniel: Service men overseas and in Her Majesty's ships draw foreign currency against their pay and allowances at fixed rates of exchange. This arrangement protects Service men from market

fluctuations in exchange rates, including those arising from the floating of the £ sterling.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am grateful for that reply. Does it mean that the men themselves realise that they are being treated generously and do not feel that they are getting the green rub?

Lord Balniel: I think that Service men have a clear knowledge of matters affecting their pay and allowances. I believe that this is widely understood.

Royal Air Force, Bruntingthorpe

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of State for Defence (1) if it is his intention to sell by public auction that part of Royal Air Force, Bruntingthorpe, which has been designated by the planning authority for light industrial use;

(2) what understanding has been reached with Chrysler (UK) Limited over the disposal of that part of Royal Air Force, Bruntingthorpe, which has been designated by the planning authority for light industrial use.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Lord Lambton): As I recently explained in a letter to my hon. Friend, we have agreed to sell most of the airfield land at Bruntingthorpe to Chrysler (UK) Limited, subject to its securing the necessary planning consent for the particular use that it has in mind. Some smaller parts of the airfield have been offered back to former owners.
If a sale to Chrysler is not carried out, we should consider alternatives. As far as I am aware, no part of Bruntingthorpe has been designated by the planning authority for light industrial use.

Mr. Farr: I am obliged for that reply, but I am most disappointed. Is it not incumbent upon the Minister to have a public auction whereby this land could be seen to be sold at arm's length in the interest of the State to the highest bidder? Will my hon. Friend look at it again?

Lord Lambton: Negotiations with Chrysler have been going on for a long time. The talks, began in 1968, and the negotiations began in 1970. During all this time, there was no other interest shown in the airfield. We consider that it is in the national interest that Chrysler should take over this field.

Meritorious Service Medal Annuity Register

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the number of men at present on the Meritorious Service Medal annuity register, and the average waiting time before an annuity is granted.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith): The Meritorious Service Medal annuity register at present contains 4,484 names. I regret that it is not possible to calculate an average waiting time for the grant of the annuity.

Mr. Cox: I note that reply, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that men who have been awarded this medal have loyally served this country for many years. If the award and the annuity going with it are to have any meaning, should not the amount of money allocated for the payment of the annuity be increased? I am given to understand that the average waiting time before the annuity is paid is about 16 years. This cannot be the way to treat such men. Will the hon. Gentleman look at it again?

Mr. Johnson Smith: I agree that this system has a number of unsatisfactory features, to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention, not least the fact that some of the men receive an annuity and some do not, even though they may have exactly the same qualifications. I am glad to give the assurance that the matter is being reviewed on a tri-Service basis.

Sailing Competitions (Air-Sea Rescue)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will require the promoters of cross-Atlantic sailing competitions to pay a deposit to cover the cost of air-sea rescue operations, if and when these become necessary.

Mr. Kirk: No, Sir. Where life is, or is believed to be, in imminent danger, assistance is provided if it can be, but without charge.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not deplorable that public money should be spent and lives risked, or even lost, through the vanity and obstinacy of foolhardy persons who seem willing to lend themselves to commercially sponsored exploitation?

Mr. Kirk: There are two views. Elderly gentlemen sometimes do curious things.

Mr. Ewing: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that these are commercially sponsored events and that national newspapers are making a great deal of money out of buying the rights to the stories which these people can tell, and, moreover, having been rescued at great public expense, such people come back and are then able to sell another story so that the national newspaper makes further profit at the expense of the British taxpayer?

Mr. Kirk: My Department is in touch with the Sunday Times about a possible contribution.

Anti-submarine Force

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has to increase the number of ships in reserve available for anti-submarine duties; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kirk: It is not part of our current policy to maintain a large reserve fleet, although from time to time ships that do not form part of the operational fleet are maintained at Chatham, thereby providing a reserve for the quick replacement of ships of the active fleet should this be necessary.

Captain Elliot: Is my hon. Friend aware that that was not a very satisfactory answer? Would he not agree that the potential submarine threat is very great and that our defences against it must be given top priority? Would he not agree that our reserve forces are a most important part of that defence?

Mr. Kirk: As my hon. and"gallant Friend says, it is a question of priorities. We are using every available hull at the moment and we have kept in operation hulls which were planned to be scrapped. If we have ships that we can keep in the standby squadron at Chatham, we do so, but the problem is that these tend to be old hulls which need long and costly refitting before they are available for standby.

Ship-repairing (Merseyside)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of State for Defence what orders he has in mind for the ship-repairing industry on Merseyside.

Mr. Kirk: A number of Royal Fleet Auxiliary refits are at present in prospect and ship-repairing firms in various areas, including Merseyside, have been, or will be, invited to tender for this work.

Mr. Tilney: Is my hon. Friend aware that the industry wants trade rather than aid and that we have good labour and now good management on Merseyside in the ship-repairing industry? Could he let the industry know over a period ahead that orders will be available?

Mr. Kirk: As I said, we have recently invited tenders for two RFA refits, and I imagine that there will be refits for 10 further vessels, for which we shall need tenders by the end of the year.

Mr. Heffer: Would the hon. Gentleman do his utmost to ensure that naval work is sent to Merseyside? Is he aware that there is now a crisis in ship repairing on Merseyside? More and more of the ship-repairing companies have moved away and there is a growth in unemployment, and the high unemployment figures do not help. Will he do his utmost to ensure not only that we get tenders but that naval work is sent to some of our ship-repairing yards?

Mr. Kirk: Warships are refitted in HM dockyards and the only warship to be refitted outside an HM dockyard is HMS "Otter", which is being refitted at Cammell Lairds. We have had nine RFA vessels refitted on Merseyside since 1969 at a total cost of £2½ million, so I do not think that Merseyside is losing out in this respect.

Harrier

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on the authorisation of project definition studies on a naval variant of the Harrier aircraft.

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the time-scale of the Government's plans to supply Harriers to the Navy.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Subject to satisfactory contract negotiations we intend to authorise a project definition study for a maritime VSTOL capability. This study is expected to take some months. Its purpose is solely to provide more

detailed information about operational capabilities, cost and time. The decision on whether to go ahead at the end of this study will depend on these and other factors.

Mr. Wilkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for those crumbs of comfort. Even a little bit of cheer is very good where this aeroplane is concerned. Would he expedite this project definition study, because the aeroplane has already undergone seagoing trials and there is every expectation that it will make an excellent Naval aeroplane?

Mr. Gilmour: I am glad that I have given my hon. Friend some cheer. The project definition study will take some months to complete. It will naturally go ahead as quickly as possible, but we cannot speed it up.

Mr. Judd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that doubts about the future are weighing heavily on the minds of men in the Fleet Air Arm? Would he not agree that we owe them a duty as quickly and as categorically as possible to clear up what their future is to be and how soon?

Mr. Gilmour: Of course I appreciate that the study should be completed and the issue decided as quickly as possible. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a complicated and important matter and it is important to reach the right decision.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does my hon. Friend realise that some of us are suspicious about terms like "project definition study" and think that they may be Whitehall gobbledy-gook for not wanting to spend the money at this time of the financial year? Would my hon. Friend cut the red tape and give the men of the Fleet Air Arm some confidence that their skills and expertise are to be used in future, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) said?

Mr. Gilmour: I cannot do much about my hon. and gallant Friend's suspicion, but I am sure that he knows what a project definition study is. He should be pleased by the announcement. Red tape is not involved. We have all been looking carefully at this decision. Many factors are involved and we must get the decision right rather than make it quickly.

Mr. Dalyell: After all the "Ark Royal" trials of last year, why on earth should there be a project definition today?

Mr. Gilmour: Because the "Ark Royal" trials merely showed that the Harrier could be operated from an aircraft carrier. Now we have to see what alterations are needed, such as radar, in the air frame and how well they will be accommodated.

Airports

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will list the airports which are owned by, and the responsibility of, the Ministry of Defence, indicating those which are no longer used and the basis on which the land within his responsibility surrounding airports is utilised, those airports no longer in active use but available for special emergency landings and take off, and those which are actively used by the Royal Air Force and other military establishments.

Lord Lambton: The answer to this Question is exceedingly lengthy and I am writing to my hon. Friend giving him the information which he requires. I do this with reluctance, but I do not think the House would wish me to begin my answer by naming individually over 100 airfields.

Mr. Osborn: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that airfields have been disposed of since the end of the Second World War at a sufficiently rapid rate? Is he aware that in South Yorkshire a number of surveys have been made for a new civil airport? Would he indicate the extent to which in South Yorkshire, particularly near Sheffield, aerodromes are still being used for civil planes to land and take off?

Lord Lambton: The rate of disposal is constantly under review, as is the situation in South Yorkshire, the great importance of which we fully appreciate.

Royal Ordnance Factories (Pay)

Mr. Golding: asked the Minister of State for Defence what are the minimum rates for male labourers for a standard working week in Royal Ordnance Factories.

Mr. G Johnson Smith: The minimum rate for adult male labourers is £17·30,

but 97 per cent. of labourers in the Royal Ordnance Factories are on the next higher rate of £17·95.

Mr. Golding: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the House will be shocked to hear that wages of £17 are being paid for a standard working week for men employed in Royal Ordnance factories? Is he aware that that is far below the comparable rates in both private and nationalised industries? Will he make certain that these workers are paid wage increases in this round of negotiations substantially above the 12 per cent. which, it was revealed yesterday, has been the average wage increase over the last 12 months?

Mr. Johnson Smith: The offer made to the lower-paid workers in the recent round of wage negotiations works out at 11½ per cent. Average earnings in ROF factories are £23·38 a week. As the hon. Gentleman knows, these matters are still being negotiated.

Dame Joan Vickers: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that many people on the lower wage rates are getting as little as £13·50? Even at the wage he mentioned, if they have two children, they would get more if they were unemployed, and some actually receive FIS.

Mr. Johnson Smith: I will certainly see that those words are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Judd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this problem goes much wider than the Royal Ordnance factories, for it affects the dockyards, too? Is he aware that there is burning resentment among industrial civil servants in defence establishments about what they see as the paltry sums with which they have to meet the difficulties of inflation? Is he aware that only today a nuclear accident exercise in Portsmouth Dockyard was cancelled because of an industrial dispute which resulted from resentment among the men?

Mr. Johnson Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, negotiations are continuing.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is my hon. Friend aware that at Bovington, for instance, skilled men are doing most responsible work including building Long John armoured fighting vehicles for use in


Ulster, but they are apprehensive about the standards at which their wages enable them to live? Is he aware that unskilled men are getting £17 and have no overtime? Is not this an anxious situation?

Mr. Johnson Smith: I am certainly aware of the valuable work that they are doing. However, as I said, negotiations are taking place, and I cannot add to what I have already said.

Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is in a delicate position while negotiations are taking place. However, in view of what has been said on both sides of the House, and as some labourers have a take-home pay of only £15·35, will he not instruct his negotiating committee to make a substantial increase in the offer already made?

Mr. Johnson Smith: This is a question of negotiation for the Civil Service Department. The negotiations are being conducted by the Civil Service Department on behalf of my Ministry. I do not think that there is anything further that I should say. My purpose is to do everything possible to facilitate the negotiations. I do not wish to say more than I have already said.

Mr. John Morris: The Minister cannot shelter behind the Civil Service Department, which may be conducting the negotiations. The question of the efficiency of these establishments is for the hon. Gentleman's Department. Will he give a clear indication to his right hon. Friend that he should ensure that wages throughout these establishments are comparable with those in other industries?

Mr. Johnson Smith: We have a continuing interest in these negotiations. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Ministry of Defence plays an important part in the Joint Co-ordinating Committee on these negotiations, and I am satisfied that our views are properly taken into account. But it is the Civil Service Department which conducts the negotiations.

HMS "Renown"

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Minister of State for Defence when it is intended to bring HMS "Renown" into Her Majesty's Dockyard, Rosyth, for a refit now that HMS "Repulse" has left

the dockyard; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the reason for the delay in commencing the refit of HMS "Renown" at Rosyth Dockyard, in view of the fact that HMS "Repulse" has now left the dockyard.

Mr. Kirk: HMS "Renown" is still operational and it is not the practice to disclose details of current and planned operational movements of Polaris submarines.

Mr. Hunter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the workers in Rosyth Dockyard feel that the Government are being spiteful because of their industrial action in the dockyard and that the "Renown" is not coming into the yard for that reason? Is he further aware that there is a shortage of work in Rosyth Dockyard and that men are likely to be sent home, if they are not already being sent home, because of the shortage?

Mr. Kirk: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been difficulty in Rosyth Dockyard, and my Department has always said that it could not risk putting HMS "Renown" into the dockyard until we had some assurance of continuing stability there. Other ships will be going in for refit there, and I hope that HMS "Renown" will go in as soon as possible.

Demobilised Service Men (Housing)

Mr. Soref: asked the Minister of State for Defence what assistance his Department gives members of Her Majesty's forces with the finding of houses following their demobilisation.

Mr. G. Johnson Smith: For those Servicemen who wish to purchase homes there are a number of schemes, such as the assisted house purchase scheme and special arrangements with building societies. So far as council housing is concerned, there is a Government circular to local authorities asking for their co-operation and I am glad to say that most ex-Service men do not have much difficulty in obtaining accommodation.

Mr. Soref: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he concede that many Service men who are not on housing lists


are at a great disadvantage on demobilisation and that particularly those stationed in Ulster prior to demobilisation are worthy of special consideration?

Mr. Johnson Smith: The position of a soldier in Ulster is no different from that of any other soldier who leaves the Army. But people who join the Army join on the basis that they may be called upon to serve in any part of the world. Advice about housing is given to all soldiers prior to their leaving the Army, and the Government's circular was issued to local authorities in order to help soldiers who sought council housing but did not qualify on grounds of residence. I am glad to say that most local authorities have found themselves able to co-operate.

NATO (British Contribution)

Mr. Hattersley: asked the Minister of State for Defence what analyses are now being made in his Department of the British contribution to North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in preparation for negotiations on the mutual and balanced reduction of forces in Europe.

Lord Balniel: The Ministry of Defence is playing an active and constructive part in NATO studies of the military aspects of mutual and balanced force reductions.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that answer means categorically that Her Majesty's Government are enthusiastic about genuine mutual balanced force reduction talks, hope to see some arms limitation and control in Europe, and are prepared to play their part in making the necessary concessions that that involves?

Lord Balniel: Yes, I can confirm that. The Government are taking a leading part in the preparatory work for these talks.

Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the notable lack of success which the Government of the Chinese People's Republic have had in trying to negotiate similar arrangements with the Soviet Government in recent months? Will he bear that in mind?

Lord Balniel: I will certainly bear it in mind, but it will not lessen our determination to make a success of these talks if they can be begun.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will Her Majesty's Government stress that without such mutual force reductions the value of a security conference is very limited? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to get these talks started in January immediately after the American and German elections and to include the question of force reductions in the agenda?

Lord Balniel: If the security of Western Europe can be preserved by a lower level of forces, we, like all other Western European Governments, will be delighted. Negotiations have not yet begun, but they will begin as soon as they can be arranged.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Nuneaton and Bed worth.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Huckfield: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that both Nuneaton Borough Council and Bed worth Urban District Council have taken decisions to refuse to implement the Housing Finance Bill when it becomes an Act? Does he not also realise that working-class people are determined to do all they can to fight against this specifically class legislation? What will he do to find out how ordinary people feel about his Government? How about putting it to the country?

The Prime Minister: I was aware of that fact, and I am sorry that the authorities have taken this action. Perhaps we had better wait to see what happens.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to chair a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.

Mr. Redmond: asked the Prime Minister when he will next take the Chair at the National Economic Development Council.

The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to take the chair at a normal


monthly meeting. However, following the special meeting at 10 Downing Street on 18th July, another such meeting has been arranged for 25th July at which I propose to take the chair.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the CBI's undertaking yesterday to continue its policy of price restraint, would not this be the moment to bring to the attention of the TUC, which has shown real concern for the public interest at this moment, that excessive wage increases are self-defeating as they serve only to raise the cost of living?

The Prime Minister: That is so. That was one of the matters which was discussed last Tuesday.

Mr. Redmond: We have a situation in which production is rising, unemployment is falling—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—the trend of the unemployment figures is in the right direction—prices are beginning to stabilise and the CBI has continued its initiative. Is it not time to welcome the TUC's willingness to talk rather than to indulge in party politics, of which, I admit, I have been as guilty as anybody?

The Prime Minister: I welcome these talks. The fact that we are having the next meeting a week after the original meeting shows that the parties taking part in the discussions are seriously debating the issues and endeavouring to find solutions to them. The House should take account of the fact that the unemployment figures include approximately 29,000 students who have gone on the register for vacation employment. That is not a matter which one can take into account when considering the running of the economy. There is a very large number of students who could register if they were so minded.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister tell the CBI and the TUC, when he meets them, that the unemployment figures do not take into account school leavers and, therefore, do not give a true picture of the number of unemployed? Will he relate to the CBI that the 5 per cent. ceiling on price increases which it has recommended is not strictly valid because the CBI does not have the teeth to implement it? There have been increases in prices in most cases and on that

basis the trade union movement is justified in pursuing a wages policy.

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that one of the outstanding features was that the CBI has policed its prices policy, and it has done so very effectively. Nobody has claimed that the CBI is responsibile for the whole range of prices because obviously there are certain prices for services which are outside its scope as many of the organisation providing services are not members of the CBI. But the increase in prices over the year of about 6 per cent. shows a great decrease in the rate of price increases.

Dr. Vaughan: Have not the Government already done a great many of the things for which the TUC has asked—growth, employment, pensions and a whole list of others—and has not the CBI also been extremely co-operative? Is not the country now entitled to a great degree of co-operation from the TUC?

The Prime Minister: That is what we are discussing at the meetings between the Government, the CBI and the TUC.

Mr. Ross: Before the Prime Minister goes to the meeting, will he consult the Department of Employment, where he will learn that, according to the latest figures available, the number of wholly unemployed, excluding school leavers and adult students, after seasonal adjustment, has increased by 5,000? We would rather have reality, with the Government facing the grave situation, than dodging and using selected and unreal figures.

The Prime Minister: The facts I have stated are the case, as the right hon. Gentleman has just confirmed. I did not say that the students represented the total increase. I said that what must be taken into account is that they are a large part of it; 29,000 out of the increase is a very substantial proportion.

Mr. Baxter: Is the Prime Minister aware that we should all welcome a 5 per cent. stabilisation of prices by the CBI, but only a fortnight ago I received a letter in my office to the effect that the price of bricks has gone up by 16 per cent. Is not this 5 per cent. ceiling just a lot of eyewash and window-dressing?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not accept that the one instance quoted by


the hon. Gentleman shows that the general policy has not been implemented. The fact that it has been implemented is shown by the change in the retail price index.

Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's praise for the CBI, taking into account rebates as well as unrebated increases, will he undertake that the increase in council house rents will be no more than 5 per cent. over the next year?

The Prime Minister: No Sir, certainly not.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—the reason is that this policy includes the rebate system to help the lower-paid workers. It is a deliberate policy that council house tenants who can afford to pay a fair rent—and the right hon. Gentleman implemented a fair rent policy in his time—should do so, and those who need rebates will get them.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman may have misheard my question. Allowing for rebates as well as unrebated increases, will he undertake that the average increase, rebated and unrebated, is within the 5 per cent.? If not, does he not agree that this is a policy of deliberate inflation of prices?

The Prime Minister: I cannot guarantee that, for the simple reason that the scheme is carried out by the local authorities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".]—and what the increases and rebates are will depend on the circumstances in each local authority.—[Interruption.]—I know that hon. Gentlemen are not prepared to be rational about this in any way. The circumstances of each local authority vary, and the extent to which rents are put up and the extent to which rebates apply will depend on the circumstances of the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, and it is sheer hypocrisy to pretend otherwise.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles—next Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOL-AGE RECRUITS (EDUCATION)

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Departments of Education and Science

and of Defence in regard to the education of school-age recruits; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: As my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware—[Interruption.]

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On a point of order. Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, for the rabble opposite to be quiet so that I can hear the reply to my Question?

Mr. Speaker: My only purpose is to try to get a reasonable number of Questions answered. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: As my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware, the Government have decided, after careful consideration by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Education and Science, to raise the lower age limit for recruitment in line with the school leaving age.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: My right hon. Friend will be aware that for many years the Services have recruited 15-year-olds and have allowed them to continue their general education simultaneously with their military training. The scheme worked very well both for the individuals and for the Forces. But the Secretary of State for Education and Science has set her face adamantly against any such plan. Will my right hon. Friend try to persuade his right hon. and fair Friend to be a little less determined on this subject?

The Prime Minister: I know my hon. and gallant Friend's interest in this matter, but the educational training provided by the Forces began after the school leaving age, and we do not think it right, with the school leaving age being raised from 15 to 16, that the Services should be exempt from the effects of this change. We think it right that the Services training should still begin after the school leaving age.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH SEA OIL (REFINERIES)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Scottish Office and the Department of the Environment with regard to the siting of oil refineries


to take advantage of North Sea oil; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The three Departments maintain very close contact.

Mr. Douglas: I accept that that may be the case, but is the Prime Minister satisfied with a situation in which the three Departments expect that by1975 the Forties field will deliver to the United Kingdom about 20 million tons of oil per annum but the refining capacity in Scotland is not capable of taking it? Will he ask the three Departments to give urgent consideration, with the respective local authorities, to scheduling sites for oil refining and petro-chemical complexes in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The figure that is generally accepted is that by the mid-1970s it is hoped that the field will be producing about 25 million tons a year. The Scottish Office has carried out a survey of possible refinery sites in Scotland. The results of the survey are available to all who consult either the Scottish Office or the Department of Trade and Industry about possible refinery sites. A number of inquiries are under way at the moment.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to ensure that in the selection of those sites the lovely coastline is not irreparably damaged?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. In the selection of sites environmental considerations have been taken very much into account. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to Hunterston, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given certain development approval for Hunterston, but obviously the processes which will be followed will depend on the nature of any additional development which is required.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the view of many people in the South-East there is too great a concentration of oil refineries in the densely residential areas of the Thames Estuary, and that there would be great environmental advantages in siting future oil refineries in Scotland or in areas where this sort of activity is needed?

The Prime Minister: I know the interest of my hon. Friend in this subject. With the discovery of oil off the coast of Scotland there is great interest in additional refinery capacity in Scotland. Already BP has announced plans for expansion.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Governor of the Bank of England to attend all future meetings between himself, the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I value the Governor's advice on financial and monetary matters but it would not be appropriate to invite him to these meetings.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I was afraid that that might be the answer. Is this not possibly a case of Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark? When the principal topic on the agenda is inflation, might there not be something to be said for the presence of a representative of the body which is currently engaged in printing extra money at the rate of 23 per cent. per annum to finance inflation?

The Prime Minister: My answer still applies—that it would not be appropriate for the Governor of the Bank of England to be there. The monetary supply, as my hon. Friend will recognise, has been affected by the events leading up to the float and since the float.

Mr. Jay: Since the Prime Minister said a moment ago that local authorities are responsible for council house rents, have we his authority to tell local authorities that in future they can set rents at whatever level they like?

The Prime Minister: That has absolutely nothing to do with Question No. 6. What the right hon. Gentleman must recognise is, as I said to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that the circumstances in each local authority vary. Therefore, I cannot give an overall estimate of the extent to which rents will be raised or of the rebates in each local authority. I cannot answer a


purely trick question from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Grimond: Reverting to the original Question, would not the Prime Minister agree that the supply of money and credit is of great importance in any conversations he has? I appreciate his point that the Treasury representatives take this matter into account, but is it not reasonable to inquire why the Governor of the Bank of England is not also present since he is the person who is primarily involved?

The Prime Minister: It is reasonable to inquire why the Governor is not there, but in the discussions which we are having, the views of the Governor are taken into account by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself. It is unlikely that these discussions will go into a detailed discussion of the control of monetary supply. In so far as it is discussed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers are capable of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I am happy that the Prime Minister has recovered from the last answer he gave on Question No. 4. Will he now answer this: whether or not the Governor is present at the talks, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in these important talks with the CBI and the TUC—and the whole House agrees on their importance—there is nothing he can do which would be more likely to lead to success in the talks than for him to get rid of the Housing Finance Bill, particularly as even he cannot say what will be its effect in terms of inflation?

The Prime Minister: First of all, I do not accept that it is inflationary, for the reason that if we help the lower-paid workers, which is what that legislation does, it will relieve the pressure of inflation. That is recognised by both the CBI and the TUC. The right hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily reactionary in not recognising that fact. In the talks which are taking place, the TUC recognises the importance of the Bill in getting housing policy properly developed.

Mr. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is not reactionary three times to ask him to give an estimate of the average, including allowances for lower-paid workers who get rebate? I

have had no reply to my question and that is not reactionary. I repeat the question. Taking into account rebates and unrebated increases will he say whether he expects an increase of more than 5 per cent.? If he does not answer, it is because he is trying to disguise his own reactionary policies?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know the extent to which those living in local authority houses and private houses will be affected by rebates or rent increases, I will gladly let him have the figures. But I do not agree that the average over the whole country can be worked out in the way he suggests.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House kindly state next week's business?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 24TH JULY—Supply (27th allotted day): Motion to take note of the Second Report from the Expenditure Committee, together with subsequent evidence published by the Defence Sub-Committee.

Remaining stages of the National Insurance Bill.

TUESDAY, 25TH JULY—Lords Amendments to the Housing Finance Bill.

Remaining stages of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, and Second Reading of the Contracts of Employment Bill [Lords] and of the Land Charges Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named Opposed Private Business for consideration.

WEDNESDAY, 26TH JULY—Lords Amendments to the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.

Remaining stages of the Harbours Development (Scotland) Bill, the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Contracts of Employment Bill [Lords], and the Land Charges Bill [Lords].

Motions relating to the British Railways Board Order, the Electricity Boards Order and the Mortgaging of Aircraft Order.

THURSDAY, 27TH JULY—Supply (28th allotted day): There will be a debate on Scottish Affairs, on an Opposition Motion.

Remaining stages of the National Health Service (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

FRIDAY, 28TH JULY,—Remaining stages of the Industry Bill.

MONDAY, 31ST JULY—Supply (29th allotted day): Debate on Electoral Law in Northern Ireland.

The Chairman will put the Question on all outstanding Votes.

Mr. Wilson: I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman on the double load he is currently carrying, and, equally, I would express the regret we all feel about the departure of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling).
Would the right hon. Gentleman be a little clearer about the business on the Housing Finance Bill and Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill? Is it or is it not the Government's intention to impose a guillotine on Lords Amendments? If that is his intention, is he aware that this means that both Measures, which even the Prime Minister found it hard to defend this afternoon, are to have their final stages pushed through the House under guillotine?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to answer the question I put to him last week on whether he has any statement to make on the likely date of the adjournment for the Summer Recess since hon. Members in all parts of the House, particularly those with families, would like to have some idea about that date?
Thirdly, since it is understood that another place will be sitting in September, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government at this moment in time have any plans for sittings of this House during that month, other than for an emergency recall?

Mr. Carr: On the first question, I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that the timetable Motion under which the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill

was taken provided a supplementary Motion on this stage as on previous stages, and that will be the position—[Interruption.] Under the normal rules of order that will be so. I was not being other than blunt about the situation. The timetable Motion provides for subsequent Motions in subsequent stages, and this will be carried out.
On the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the Summer Recess, perhaps one of the reasons why we have a rather full programme next week is that I believe that hon. Members on all sides of the House would wish to rise as soon as possible. Although I cannot be absolutely certain at the moment—it will depend on progress—I hope it will be possible to rise during the week beginning Monday, 7th August—about the middle of that week. That is our hope. As for a September sitting, I can only say, in Asquithian words, that we must wait and see.

Mr. Wilson: On the question of the guillotine Motion, we are all prepared to make allowances for the right hon. Gentleman in the double load he is now carrying. However, is he aware that we have read the timetable Motion—indeed we voted against it, and how right that decision has proved since—but it only provided for the possibility of a Business Motion next week. Is it not extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman, whatever the pressures upon him, failed to omit that from his original statement? It is only permissive upon him, not mandatory. Now he says there will be a guillotine. It is unfortunate that it was not in his original Business Statement.

Mr. Carr: I apologise if I did not make that clear. Let me make it clear now. I also make it clear that it applies to the other Bill on the previous day.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend, now that he has taken on the Home Secretary's office, be kind enough to arrange for a statement to be made by one of his Ministers on the establishment of the office of the Palestine Liberation Organisation?

Mr. Carr: I shall draw my own attention to this. My other self has informed me already that I am at the top of the list for Questions a week today, and that there are Questions on this subject,


when I shall try to bring together and make clear the position.

Mr. Loughlin: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to two Motions standing on the Order Paper dealing with the low wage rates of industrial civil servants? May I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that during Questions when he was unfortunately unable to be present, both sides of the House were vehement in their condemnation of the low rates currently applying? I think that the whole House is ashamed of the rates that we pay our industrial civil servants. Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate on this issue?

[That this House, being conscious of the long standing and effective service provided to the nation by civilian employees in Naval Dockyards, Ministry of Defence establishments, Department of the Environment depots and other Governmental centres, believes that it would be intolerable to exploit the loyalty of these men and women; and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that their pay and conditions of employment are at all times commensurate with the indispensable contribution which they make to the fulfilment of defence and other Governmental policies.]

[That this House is appalled at the Government's miserable offer of £1·50 on the adult male rate made to industrial civil servants through the negotiating machinery, particularly in view of the extremely low wages rates now applying, such rates being as low as £17 per week gross; and calls upon the Government to make a substantially improved offer forthwith]

Mr. Carr: I doubt whether I can arrange for a debate in the near future. Of course I have noticed the Motions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. As the hon. Gentleman and the House will know, the whole question of low pay is one of the matters right at the centre of the current talks with the CBI and the TUC.

Sir Bernard Braine: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Early-Day Motion No. 415, calling upon the Government to reconsider their view

about the need for a Select Committee to review the British overseas aid performance, which has already attracted 125 signatures from both sides of the House in only a few days? I do not expect my right hon. Friend to give a snap answer today, but will he reflect on the fact that this House has little or no opportunity to scrutinise a most important sphere of British policy? Will he consult his colleagues and give the House an assurance that he will come back in the autumn to make an announcement on this to the House?

[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to reconsider its view as set out in its Green Paper on Select Committees of the House of Commons published in October, 1970, and to recommend to the House that a Select Committee on Overseas Development be established, whose functions would include the review and appraisal of British performance in relation to the International Development Strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade.]

Mr. Carr: Certainly I will consult on that, and perhaps I might say, as I once had the honour to be a Minister concerned with overseas aid, that I shall look at it carefully.

Mr. Thorpe: Reverting to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a farce to run this House on a sort of cat and mouse procedure to fit in with what the Government might find convenient as a timetable? Is there any reason why this House should not have normal dates laid down for the Summer Recess, and merely put off the date of Prorogation until we have finished all our business? Surely that is the logical way in which any mature House of Commons should operate.

Mr. Carr: That sounds nice and easy. If and when the day comes, that I am no longer Leader of the House, it will seem nice and easy to me once again. However, it is not as easy as that. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that there are occasions when certain measures have to be got through by certain dates, and that certain subjects need to be debated within certain time scales. Within reason, I hope that we can work in the future


under somewhat less pressure and with more certainty than we have been able to this year.

Mr. Hastings: May we expect another debate on Rhodesia before the Summer Recess? Although my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has said that be needs a period for reflection, this has gone on for some time. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary how it helps for the Foreign Office to make gratuitous protests to the West German Government about the possible participation of a multi-racial Rhodesian team in the forthcoming Olympics? Certain of us resent this very much.

Mr. Carr: I shall speak to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary about this. I cannot see any chance of a debate before the recess. As a matter of fact, I ought to put the House straight immediately. The Foreign Office responded to a specific question from the West German Government about the status of Rhodesian citizens. There was no question of offering gratuitous advice, or anything like that. The Foreign Office responded to a specific question put to it by the West German Government.

Mr. Hattersley: Monday's debate concerns a report of the Expenditure Committee which was published in February. Rather unusually, the Department has not yet commented on that report. Shall we have the Department's comments before the debate begins on Monday?

Mr. Carr: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that. I think that the answer is "Yes". I am hoping that a memorandum will be published tomorrow.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend expect to find time before the Summer Recess for the remaining stages of the National Health Service (Family Planning) Amendment Bill?

Mr. Carr: As my hon. Friend probably knows, the Procedure Committee produced its report this morning. I wish to have a chance to look at that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that whatever decision I may be able to take about this can apply in the overspill

period and need not necessarily apply before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in spite of the great pressure on time before the recess, time will be found for us to debate the Government's apparently ruthless determination to implement the Rothschild's proposals on Government research and development and their contemptuous ignoring of the views of the Select Committee on Science and Technology?

Mr. Carr: I am afraid that I cannot accept the emotive phrases in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. There may be genuine differences of opinion. But I am sure that the Government would not regard the Select Committee's disagreement with the Government's views as being contemptuous. Nor do I think that the Select Committee should in reverse. I understand that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal has had an invitation to meet the Select Committee, and he hopes to be able to accept that. When, as will happen as soon as possible, the Departments have replied to the Select Committee's four reports. I hope that there will be a debate in this House. I shall do my best to find time for that in the autumn.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last Friday the House was asked to appropriate £250 million to the Government of Northern Ireland covering almost the whole range of Departments? Many hon. Members took the trouble to be here on Friday. However, we were asked to do that in less than two hours. Does not this place the Chair in great difficulty when, allowing for Front Bench speeches, it is trying to get in a representative selection of views? In this period of time, it is impossible. When this sort of Vote comes up again, may I ask my right hon. Friend to treat this House a little generously?

Mr. Carr: Certainly we shall do the best that we can in these matters. We are dealing with a temporary, difficult and emergency situation. That must be taken into account. Certainly we need as much time as we can reasonably have. On the two appropriation Bills and other orders on Northern Ireland that we have dealt with in the last few


weeks, I think that there have been a considerable number of hours for debate.

Mr. Shore: Very important matters have been discussed in Brussels yesterday and today. Will the Leader of the House make sure that his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster makes a report to the House early next week so that we may have an opportunity to put questions to him? Will the Leader of the House also consider the other very important matters which have been discussed at the meeting of other European Ministers during the past week? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the whole strategy of making reports to this House arising from such meetings?

Mr. Carr: Yes. In the longer run, when we become members of the Community, we hope to find means of discussing the right procedures to adopt in these matters. But on the issue that the right hon. Gentleman mentions, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement a day or two ago. Of course I shall convey the right hon. Gentleman's wishes to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Further to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), my right hon. Friend will be aware that there have been a number of developments in agricultural matters, and I have in mind especially the statement concerning the two draft orders from the Commission in Brussels. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that there will be time to debate those two draft orders, if not the rest of agriculture, before any finalisation of the orders by the Commission?

Mr. Carr: I take note of what my hon. Friend says, and perhaps I might discuss this with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy.

Mr. J. T. Price: May I ask for a little more information about one of the items of business next Tuesday, the Land Charges Bill [Lords]? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to use the occasion of that short debate to make a statement on the continuing unchecked and outrageously criminal escalation of land prices, which is affecting all building

operations? Should not the Government, who are concerned about the economic future of the country, understand that the gravest situation confronting the country in the escalation of prices and everything else, undermining our economic strength, is the outrageous speculation in land? Yesterday at Altrincham, Cheshire, half an acre of land was sold for £26,000. Will the Government make a statement at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Carr: Of course this is a very important matter, but I do not think it arises on a consolidation Measure.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department, answering a Question on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on 10th May, said that there would certainly need to be a debate on the new parliamentary building, and since the Services Committee has, I understand, recommended that the winning design, with modifications, should be built as soon as possible, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this important matter before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Carr: I agree that it is an important matter, but I do not think we shall have a debate before the Summer Recess. I hardly imagine that the House has any fear that building operations could conceivably have started before the autumn.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Motion No. 423, headed,
Who Are The Greedy Men?"?

[That this House notes the growing practice of Ministers, chairmen of companies. Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords, many with vast land and property interests and excessive incomes within the £15,000 per annum to £65,000 per annum range, attacking the workers with a few pounds a week total income when they seek wage increases to off-set the rise in the cost of living, caused by the economic policies of Her Majesty's Government; feels that it ill-behoves these people to call such claims by workers greedy when on Tuesday 12th July it was reported that Sir Leslie O'Brien, the Governor of the Bank of England, had a pay rise last year of £3,541 to £30,723, a rise of 13 per cent.,


one other director received between £20,001 and £22,500, one other between £17,501 and £20,000 and three between £15,001 and £17,500 and that 23 employees received between £10,001 and £20,000 per annum; and notes that not a whisper of protest has come from those who profess to support honest and open government and would urge the Foreign Secretary to condemn these greedy men.]

In view of the discussion between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition today about the Governor of the Bank of England, and the fact that the Governor had a £3,500 rise last year, bringing his salary up to £30,000, and that some 30 members of his staff are drawing hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange, if not a discussion on the Motion, a discussion with the Governor of the Bank of England to ask that he should try to define who are the greedy men?

Mr. Carr: I do not think it would need a debate for the Governor of the Bank of England to do that.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend about the business proposed for next Friday, the remaining stages of the Industry Bill. Since it is a Measure involving large and open-ended amounts of taxpayers' money, is in many respects controversial, and is also a Measure of considerable significance in the Scottish context, is it not rather an unsuitable matter to be discussed on Friday?

Mr. Carr: I will consider what my hon. Friend says, but the House is under some pressure, and I regard it as the general wish of hon. Members that we should be able to rise at not too late a date in August. While as a general rule we try not to have important matters on Friday, which I accept is for the general convenience of the House, I do not think we can allow ourselves to get into the position of saying that Friday is a day on which we can never discuss anything of importance.

Sir G. de Freitas: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the general problem of finding time for debates of public importance, such as debates on the reports of Royal Commissions? Will he particu-

larly consider this when confronted by fellow Ministers demanding even more legislative time in the next Session?

Mr. Carr: Yes, Sir, I certainly will. It is a new experience for the Leader of the House to realise quite what pressure there always is for new legislation. I do not think I have any less violent a reputation as a butcher of my colleagues' legislative ideas than any of my predecessors.

Mr. McMaster: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how the business on Monday, 31st July, relating to Northern Ireland is to be taken? Are orders to be introduced dealing with local authority elections, proportional representation and a referendum? If so, in view of the exceptional importance of this business, will my right hon. Friend refer again to the last two days when Northern Ireland orders were debated, 24th June and 14th July, and note what was said then? Many hon. Members on both sides, including a reasonable cross-section of Northern Ireland Members, were disappointed because of their misunderstanding about the extended time that would be given to the debate last Friday. In view of the extreme gravity of the situation in Northern Ireland, will he consider giving a small extension of time so that a reasonable cross-section may speak on 31st July?

Mr. Carr: I do not think we can have more than the normal day on Monday, 31st July. I will consider what my hon. Friend says, but I should be less than honest if I led him to expect more than a normal day. However, I can say that it is not the intention to follow the debate then with any orders. What I thought it best to do was to allow the House to have a general debate on the problem of electoral law, and then some time later, not on the same day, to put down the necessary orders. In other words, the House will not be asked to vote on the orders until hon. Members have first had time to have the general debate and reflect on it.
I believe that the amount of time does not compare unfavourably with the amount of time that, for example, appropriation Measures have been given at Stormont or that other matters of great importance to the United Kingdom have been in this House.

Mr. Ross: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he proposes to proceed with the Bill on the reorganisation of the National Health Service in Scotland on Thursday after 10 o'clock? If so, will he reconsider the matter? It is a very important Bill. It is not all that controversial—we got on very well with it—but it is one that could wait. Bearing in mind that the Scottish Committees are meeting on Tuesday and Thursday the amount of Scottish business the right hon. Gentleman is putting on next week is just too much.

Mr. Carr: One week I am accused of not putting on enough Scottish business and the next week it is said that there is too much. But I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, and will consider it. However, I think that having reached this stage of this important Bill, a Bill about which there is not an undue amount of controversy, as the right hon. Gentleman says—[Interruption.]—I also think that at this time of the year many hon. Members would on the whole prefer, and I think it is probably to the convenience of the majority of hon. Members, to work a little harder and a little later at night than we normally wish in order to go on our holidays a little sooner.

Mr. Pavitt: Is it usual for a White Paper so controversial and important as the "Framework for Government Research and Development" to be introduced into the House without a statement from the Secretary of State responsible? In view of the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) about the present Government timetable, is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement next week in order that preliminary questions can be put on the future of medical research, of which about 40 per cent. will now be shifted from one quarter to another?

Mr. Carr: I cannot make a definite promise, but I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall discuss it seriously with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Molloy: With regard to the remaining stages of the Housing Finance Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to help those of us who as Members of Parliament are in very close con-

tact with councillors working on our local authorities? We have been giving them wrong information. Will the right hon. Gentleman treat it as a very serious matter and be prepared to make a statement before we further debate the Bill? We have been told this afternoon that what we have been telling our councillors is altogether wrong. No less a person than the Prime Minister has advised us that matters of housing policy are their concern, and that therefore we have been misleading them. This is an extraordinarily serious situation. Will the right hon. Gentleman examine it and make a statement to the House?

Mr. Carr: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads in HANSARD precisely what my right hon. Friend said.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us coming from Scotland in order to give Scottish business due consideration would be quite happy to go on for another week and forgo a week's recess? Does he not agree that he is asking Scottish Members to do an impossible job and that they cannot give reasonable consideration to the mass of business he is bringing forward next week? Who agreed that we should have such a programme of Scottish business for next week?

Mr. Carr: Whatever consultation there may have been, I must and do, as Leader of the House, take full responsibility for the business which I put before the House, and I must take the blame if it is wrong. I do not under-estimate the point put by the hon. Gentleman, but I am trying to take account of what I believe to be the overall wishes and interests of the majority of right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Edward Short: Looking back over the Session, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the business has not been handled very well? We have not had all our Supply Days—the Government still owe us three. We have had hardly any Prayers. We have had very few debates on general matters, such as reports of Royal Commissions, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas). Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that he has congested the House and that the Opposition have been treated extremely badly?

Mr. Carr: I appreciate the gentleness with which the right hon. Gentleman has chided my predecessor and me. It is true that the House has had a very heavy legislative programme this Session, and that always makes things difficult in finding time for other matters. But I would not accept that the business has been mismanaged—indeed, rather the reverse. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned Prayers. It has been difficult. I hope to find some time for Prayers before we rise in the second week of August.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had 27 minutes of business Questions. Mr. Whitelaw—statement.

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order arising out of Questions?

Mr. Price: It arises, Mr. Speaker, from today's Order Paper. May I raise it before the Leader of the House leaves the House?

Mr. Speaker: It would be more appropriate, if it does not arise from Questions, to raise it after the statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): The House will wish to be aware of developments in the situation in Northern Ireland since my statement last Friday.
The rate of shooting incidents involving the security forces has fallen from the very high figure given in my last statement, but I must tell the House that they remain at the level of 50–70 a day. The majority have occurred in Belfast. The IRA have again used a rocket launcher, but, fortunately, caused no casualties and little damage. Six soldiers, a member of the UDR and a constable of the RUC have been killed. One of the soldiers lost his life while attempting to defuse a bomb. Nineteen soldiers and two constables of the RUC have been wounded. A civilian was shot dead when he tried to apprehend two terrorists

planting a bomb; and I know the House has learned with particular sorrow that a baby boy was killed by an explosion in Strabane yesterday. I am sure the House will wish to express its sympathy with the families concerned.
Several explosions have caused damage to the centre of Londonderry since my last statement, and a large explosion caused extensive damage in Port down. The Army's action against the terrorists is continuing. Reports indicate that about 150 terrorist have been hit by Army fire since the end of the ceasefire. The Provisional IRA has publicly admitted to substantial casualties.
The House will wish to know that I have authorised stringent new security measures in both Belfast and Londonderry to protect life and property. These are bound to be irksome to innocent people, but they are necessary if the security forces are to carry out successfully their paramount function to protect the people of all communities and their property.
Meanwhile, I have embarked on the consultations with the political parties in Northern Ireland which I mentioned to the House on an earlier occasion with a view to a conference on the political future. In addition, I have made it known that I want all political parties and individuals who have views on the future arrangements for the governing of Northern Ireland to send those views to me in writing.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We note the sombre details of the security situation which the right hon. Gentleman has given, and we wish to be associated with his expressions of sympathy.
While our support is for the low profile approach, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the face of bombing and shooting we support the security precautions he has taken? Lenadoon was the immediate, if not the basic, reason for the ending of the truce. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider for the future better and more efficient methods of mediation within this and similar areas? Lenadoon is part of the Suffolk Estate. Is he aware that any withdrawal of troops from that area must not endanger the lives of the soldiers who will necessarily have to continue to be there at the intersection of the Protestant and Catholic


areas? Those who will be left there to keep the peace will be between two dangerous sectors of that estate.
We also note the right hon. Gentleman's announcement about political talks as an earnest of his determination to find a lasting political solution and reconciliation, but will he tell us more about the political consultations? Are they to be only by writing for some people, or will he hold talks with some people as well as receiving written evidence? In this respect, is he aware that, by exploring every avenue and talking to those who seek a military solution to find a basis for ending the urban warfare, he has talked with people from the South? Why not talk not only to the Northern Ireland political parties but to the political parties in the South which make no extravagant claims? Such discussion would in no sense abrogate from our responsibility for the Northern Ireland problem.
Finally, when are we to hear about the details of the economic developments which are to take place in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the details of the security situation and the sympathy he has expressed to the families concerned He described the low profile Army approach, and I am bound to say that where there is clearly a determination to resort to violence every effort will be made to root out the terrorists concerned. The fact that about 150 terrorists have been hit in the short period since the ceasefire shows that there has been a considerable effort by the Army.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to Lenadoon and the question of mediation. I must return to the point I have made all along—that I must regret that after an agreement had been reached by my officials with all those concerned as to how this difficult problem could have been solved, the opportunity for further meetings was not taken. I very much regret that fact.
The action taken by the Army in the Lenadoon area was taken on two counts: first, to protect the people in the area, and, secondly, because I am not prepared in any circumstances to allow the

Army to be placed at a disadvantage in the sort of situation in which it finds itself. I therefore decided that, both to protect individuals and property and to see that the Army was in a position to protect itself, the action which was taken was necessary. I have no doubt that it was necessary. The area has been quiet since, and I very much hope that those families which decided to go away will appreciate that it is now quiet and that it would be sensible in these circumstances to return.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to political talks. I have made it clear that the conference we intend to have should be with the parties with elected representatives in Northern Ireland, and I think that that is very important. In the consideration of further action, one must make it clear that that is the basis of the conference on which I am working at the present time. That is the right basis, in my belief, and I wish to press on with it now.

Captain Orr: In addition to looking at the security situation in Belfast and Londonderry, would my right hon. Friend have a look at the situation in Newry, because there is fairly clear evidence that we may expect trouble there in the near future? I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend would do this.
On the general question about the political conference on the future of Northern Ireland, will he please comment on the suggestions in certain parts of the Press today that he may be seeing Dr. Hillery of the Irish Republic? Would he please make it plain that Her Majesty's Government will negotiate with the Irish Republic on matters of common interest between the two kingdoms, but that the Irish Republic—

Mr. Rose: Kingdoms?

Captain Orr: Well, between the two countries. But will my right hon. Friend agree that the Irish Republic has no standing whatever in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. and gallant Friend makes the point about his own constituency in Newry, and I will certainly look into this urgently. He secondly makes the point about Dr. Hillery, who is likely to be in London


tomorrow. It is true that Dr. Hillery's talks are properly with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That is where they rest. He has asked if he might, as he was passing, see me, and I thought it would be a courtesy to see him. I shall, of course, be doing so in the company of an official from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office because that is the Department which properly deals with him and with the Republic.
May I take the opportunity to refer to the economic measures to which the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) referred and to which I did not reply. I hope to be able to announce these very soon. They are important in the context of the Northern Ireland unemployment situation, which, I regret to say, has been seen to be worse today.

Mr. McManus: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to explain to me how the majority population is expected to believe that he is genuinely interested in reconciliation, so called, when he insists on maintaining a provocative and needless Army presence in the Lenadoon area which has forced the population to retreat? Why has he allowed the Army today to invade certain areas in West Belfast and knock down barricades? Secondly, since many civilians have been killed by rubber bullets, will the right hon. Gentleman now instruct the Army not to use these lethal weapons any more in crowd control? Thirdly, when will he live up to his promise made to this House on several occasions and release all the internees?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have made the position on Lenadoon perfectly clear. The hon. Gentleman and the House must appreciate the position as it was on the ground. There was considerable firing at an Army post, and a bulldozer vehicle was run down the hill with a bomb in it, designed to blow up the Army post. In those circumstances I would have been totally failing in my duty if I had not said that that was an intolerable position. Equally, it was intolerable for the citizens in the area who were being subjected to considerable shooting. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that since the Army action was taken the shooting in the area, apart from a

few shots the night before last, has stopped. Therefore, the area is now peaceful. That is why I hope that the people who have left it will feel able to return. As for the point about "many civilians being killed by rubber bullets", I have no such evidence. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of "many civilians being killed by rubber bullets" I hope that he will give it to me. I certainly do not know of it.

Mr. Powell: May I ask my right hon. Friend how many more lives he considers will be fruitlessly sacrificed before he comes to realise what he was told months ago in this House, that the political policy on which he is engaged has proved disastrous, is driving the Province into the arms of civil war and will have to be altered?

Mr. Orme: What is your alternative?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my right hon. Friend has said; I do not accept it. I do not accept the argument that a policy which is designed to find reconciliation, which is designed sensibly to end violence, is a wrong policy. That is what I am engaged in doing. I do not expect my right hon. Friend, who has been permanently opposed to me and everything I am trying to do, to do anything at all to try to help me in that task. I do not expect him to do so because he is perfectly entitled to take his view and I am entitled to take mine. I fully understand his feelings. What I believe is that there is no alternative to a sensible policy of reconciliation combined with an absolute determination to stand up for the rights of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom if they so wish and, at the same time, to make sure that violence does not pay. That is my policy. I know that my right hon. Friend does not accept what I am trying to do. That is what I believe is right and that is what I intend to go on trying to do.

Mr. Grimond: May we express our sympathy with the relatives of those who have lately been murdered in Northern Ireland? May we also say to the Secretary of State that we, at least, fully support his policy of attempting genuine political reconciliation? We approve of his determination to try to get the elected representatives of various parties in


Northern Ireland brought to talks, and we recommend him to talk to the representatives of Eire. May I ask him whether he does not agree that should all these efforts, on which he has spent so much time and energy, fail then the present situation cannot continue for ever? Is he aware that many people will respond to the Prime Minister's appeal to the Irish to settle themselves what must be an Irish question? If, after all this, there are certain areas in the Six Counties which totally reject what are, after all, the legal authorities, then it would seem that they are determined to leave the Six Counties and that consideration ought to be given in that very unhappy situation to whether those close to the border should not return to Eire. Would he not agree that what is certain is that we cannot continue with the situation whereby large areas of the country reject the authorities and also reject the very genuine efforts being made by the right hon. Gentleman to bring about a peaceful solution?

Mr. Whitelaw: Dealing first with the right hon. Gentleman's point about consultation with the political parties and individuals in Northern Ireland, I must, in view of what he has said, draw a particular distinction between those consultations which are with the people of Northern Ireland about their own future and talks with the representatives of Eire, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I must make it clear that my meeting with Dr. Hillery is purely a courtesy meeting and does not imply—nor would he expect this to be so—that Dr. Hillery is involved in the discussions I am having with the people of Northern Ireland about their future. As to his other comments, I believe firmly that the right of the people in Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom if they so wish is one to which we are all in this House most totally committed. If we are so committed we have an absolute duty to them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolver Hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and I may disagree on exactly how that particular commitment should be fulfilled but I do not think that we disagree in any way about the absolutely total nature of the commitment.

Mr. Powell: Mr. Powell indicated assent.

Mr. Whitelaw: To this we are all fully and absolutely charged—no one more than me. In honour, therefore, I can only say that I am totally committed to that principle, and I shall do my best within what I believe to be right to fulfil it.

Mr. McMaster: How can my right hon. Friend, after his experience in Northern Ireland, over the dead bodies of more than 450 people, the 7,000 injured and the damage done by the Provisional and Official IRA over the last three years in attacks on the general public, still talk about reconciliation? Does he really think that the problem in Northern Ireland is that of reconciliation? The great majority of people in Northern Ireland, both Catholic and Protestant, have no fear of reconciliation or hatred of one another; their hatred is of the IRA and Republican gunmen who are waging war in Northern Ireland. Will he abandon the fiction of reconciliation? We are not to be reconciled to gunmen, are we? Will he abandon the fiction of confrontation? All the damage in Ulster is done as a result of the aggressive actions of the IRA. These are the people who must be countered and brought to justice before there can be any peace.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that by a slip of the tongue the hon. Gentleman referred to the Republican Government waging war.

Mr. McMaster: No, Republican gunmen.

Mr. Harold Wilson: It was important to get it right.

Mr. Whitelaw: I confirm to my hon. Friend, and I accept at once what he says, that there can be no reconciliation whatsoever with violence, but, equally, one has to face the fact that behind the violence there are roots which one has to consider and look at in the context of the whole situation. But there can be no reconciliation with violence, and I should have thought that my hon. Friend and many others would have welcomed the fact that there has been clear and determined Army action against the terrorists in the last few days, as is indicated by the large number who have been hit by Army fire.

Mr. Rose: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those who came back from Dublin this morning found universal abhorrence of violence on the part of every one of the major political parties in the Republic and also a strong understanding of the fears of the Unionist majority in the North of Ireland? Does he accept that without the Republicans there can be no real solution to this problem and that this part of the equation cannot be left out because it is as much an Irish as a British problem? Will he, therefore, talk to the democratically-elected representatives of the people of the Republic, and take it that many of us welcome the fact that he will be meeting Dr. Hillery?
In particular, will the right hon. Gentleman talk about common problems and the constructive things that we can do on such matters as regional policy, rather than merely talking about the negative? Will he reject entirely the idea that there can be no reconciliation? As we know, there has been murder and violence on both sides, and will he condemn them both?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am pleased to hear of the hon. Gentleman's feelings after his return from Dublin about the total rejection of violence, which I believe is widespread on both sides, whether in the North or the South of Ireland.
I am glad, too, that the hon. Gentleman came back with an understanding of the fears of the majority in Northern Ireland, because this is vital to any understanding of the situation. It has to be appreciated, as I said very firmly to certain people, that it is not possible to absorb the population of Northern Ireland into a United Ireland against their will. There is no future that way at all, and that must be clearly understood by everybody concerned. If those in the South who want a united Ireland believe that they can achieve it, they will do it only if they can persuade the Protestants in the North—andnot only the Protestants but many others—that that is what is wanted. The activities of those concerned with violence over recent years have made it far more difficult to do that than it would otherwise have been, and that is another factor which everyone ought fully to appreciate.
The question of regional policy is extremely important. All this can be

looked at, but to those who think that I am soft or lack political will may I retort that I believe the paramount necessity is to see that violence is ended.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: With regard to the forthcoming visit of Dr. Hillery, is it not essential, if we are to have a peaceful solution in Ireland, that we should have the fullest co-operation of the Republic? Whilst it is true that Dr. Hillery and any other Minister of the Republic has no constitutional standing in the North of Ireland, has not every Minister in the South of Ireland this interest, that if the IRA succeed in bringing down the Government in Northern Ireland first, it will be the Republic that will be the second?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that the Government of the Republic and Dr. Hillery himself have no illusions on that score. I was merely making clear the proper constitutional position as it stands, which I did in answer to the previous question.

Mr. Duffy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in addition to the abhorrence of violence, those who were in Dublin until this morning encountered in many quarters sympathy and understanding for the rôle of the right hon. Gentleman and great appreciation of the work that he has done? Will he therefore bear in mind the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) about consultations with the political parties in Dublin and other appropriate institutions where this can properly be done?
On the matter of security measures, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a visit by hon. Members on this side of the House to Northern Ireland a month ago and inform him that my impression then—and we met people on both sides—was that, though they may find such security measures as he has described irksome, provided they are impartial they will not find them intolerable?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's last comment. Some of the security measures which have to be taken are certainly irksome. They mean people walking considerable distances and leaving their cars far from their place of work, but if the measures are effective in the end they must be right.
As for what the hon. Gentleman said about what he found in Dublin, I must stick to my previous answer that my conference and my discussions at this time must be with the people of Northern Ireland about their own future.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Whilst agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) on the value of discussions with and the vital importance of co-operation with the Irish Republic against the common enemy of all established Government in the British Isles, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will assure Dr. Hillery that at a time when the Irish Republican Government are trying to put the IRA inside he will not let too many out?

Mr. Whitelaw: When I meet Dr. Hillery I shall have to see what particular point he makes on that score. I do not quite see the point of my hon. Friend's question, because on the whole issue of internees I have always said that I have to base my decisions on the security situation in the North of Ireland, not in the South.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Price, to raise a point of order.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am grateful to vou, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to raise a point of order. I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments.
The point that I wish to raise concerns today's business as set out on the Order Paper on pages 9736 and 9737. Last Thursday the Leader of the House announced the business for this week and in doing so said that the items which now appear on the Order Paper as Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 would be taken on Friday. I notice that at the end of the eight items listed on the Order Paper there appears the name of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) who has given notice of his intention to move the Adjournment of the House to debate a subject which has been chosen.
The House is today to continue its consideration of the Local Government Bill. A large number of Amendments remain to be considered, and the general expectation is that the sitting will extend not

merely until tomorrow morning but until late enough to rule out to-morrow's business. If that is the general expectation of every intelligent observer of our proceedings, am I in order in inviting you, Mr. Speaker, to say whether the way in which the Order Paper has been printed ending the eight listed items, which in some cases were to-morrow's business, with the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, is in order? Am I right in assuming that the Government and the Leader of the House—who is always at stake in these matters because he announces the business on the previous Thursday—if so minded, could continue today's sitting for as long as they like tomorrow? As I read the Order Paper, it gives the Government the opportunity of pushing in tomorrow's business on to-day's agenda, and that would be a breach of all the established rules of the House as I have understood them for over 22 years.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair must take each day's business as it comes along. With the optimism that the hon. Member would expect from the Chair, I hope that it will all be concluded during today's business and that there will be an opportunity for the House to proceed to constructive discussion of something else tomorrow. That is the situation facing the Chair. There is nothing out of order in what has happened.

Mr. Price: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, and before the Leader of the House answers this conundrum to the best of his ability, the question is whether the Order Paper can be construed by the Government or by the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the House as a facility for conducting tomorrow's business today. That is what I wish to know, and that is what you, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, have not answered.

Mr. Speaker: If I have not answered, I had hoped I had.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): These items were put on the Order Paper under today's business technically, after discussion through the usual channels as a precaution in case—although it would not be discussed before tomorrow—technically


we did not reach tomorrow's business, and if it was the general wish of the House to be able to dispose of these matters before rising for the weekend. I would hope that this will not be necessary. But it was done after discussion.

Mr. Price: I am sorry to be so tenacious about this point, but are we to accept the situation for the convenience of the Government of the day, whatever their political complexion, so that they can juggle with the Order Paper in such a way that they are not faced with the risk of losing business in the precious time still left in this Session? The Leader of the House, in his usual soft and amiable way, may solemnly say that he has no intention of doing injustice to the House. But if he is able to do this, it will be a breach of all our traditions and of the Standing Orders of the House. I was not aware that there had been any discussions through the usual channels. If there have been, I take the strongest objection to any representative of the Opposition involving himself in horse trading of this kind. It is in that sense that I make my protest.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has made his protest. There is nothing out of order. The Chair has simply to deal with the business. There is nothing in the Standing Orders which says that anything that has happened is wrong.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. No doubt you will correct me if I am wrong and it is not contained in Standing Orders, but should there not have been another Business Statement before this alteration was made? The business for tomorrow was announced in the Business Statement last Thursday. Should there not have been another statement?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. According to the Order Paper, we can go up to only the third item because the Business Motion which you, Mr. Speaker, will put at 10 p.m. is that we can have the first three items exempted. Any hon. Member can object to any of the other Motions, and if an hon. Member objects they cannot be taken. As far as I can see, this is simply normal practice.

Mr. Speaker: I will deal with that situation as it arises.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 191

POLICE

4.35 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I beg to move Amendment No. 899, in page 128, line 37, leave out Clause 191.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient for the House to discuss Amendment No. 254, in page 129, line 34,
after 'counties', insert 'or parts thereof'.

Sir D. Renton: The Amendment seeks to leave out Clause 191. That is the Clause, and the only Clause, which deals exclusively with police authorities and police forces. The Amendment stands in the names of myself and three of my right hon. Friends, all four of us having served at some time in the Home Office and being, therefore, by experience, naturally friendly towards the police and anxious to see that legislation which passes through Parliament affecting the police is effective and as good as it should be.
My purpose is to persuade the Government to declare their policy and intentions regarding the effect of the reorganisation of local government upon the police. As I shall show, this reorganisation will have considerable results, some of which have caused anxiety, not only to the Police Federation but also to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to people outside, including members of some police authorities.
Unfortunately, as it stands, the Clause is such a monumental piece of legislation by reference that it is not altogether easy, even if one does not run out of a supply of wet towels for the head, to explain its full meaning. Perhaps it would help if I tried to make this clear. Our thinking in this matter has to start with the Police Act, 1964, a Measure which received the broad support of both sides of the House at the time. That Act provides that the police forces of this country


shall become county or county borough police forces, that police authorities shall be committees of county councils or, as then provided, of county borough councils, and that on each police committee one-third of the members should be magistrates and two-thirds should be members of the local authority concerned.
A rather strange position has been reached in that only a minority of police forces in England—I shall speak only of England in this respect; hon. Members who have an interest in Wales will no doubt pursue that—are as of now county or county borough forces, and county borough forces will go. The majority of police forces, and, therefore, of police authorities, in England are what are called combined forces and combined authorities.
The result of the Bill—I do not disagree with it—will be that as soon as the new counties, whether they be metropolitan counties or non-metropolitan counties, have been established, police forces will become co-terminous in area with those counties and the police committees of those counties will become the police authorities.
It has been pointed out very properly by the Police Federation that this will involve changes for at any rate a proportion of members of police forces affected. They are changes which it is suggested may affect their efficiency as well as their morale, will cause family upheaval, problems in regard to the education of the children of police officers and their wives, and may also sometimes affect promotion prospects.
It was with this in mind that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) moved his short, simple but ingenious and far-reaching Amendment in Standing Committee. There was an interesting debate confined to that one matter of police areas. The debate ended in a tie and the Amendment was defeated only by the Chairman's casting vote. That same Amendment has been selected for discussion with my Amendment today.
I make it clear that if I had been a member of the Standing Committee I would have voted against that Amendment, because, subject to an over-riding matter to which I shall come later, the Government's policy, so far as I have been able to ascertain it, is so far right.
Meanwhile, however, I return to the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Widnes and other hon. Members in Standing Committee, anxieties which we must all respect, about the upheaval in the lives of police officers and their families which yet another change in many cases will bring about. Many of the changes will take place in forces which have already been the subject of amalgamation in recent years. My hon. Friend the previous Minister of State, Home Office acknowledged in Standing Committee that there might be such upheavals. He said this:
We are particularly concerned with the police officer who may be on the periphery of the area which is being changed. This is a matter which we are discussing at this moment with the Police Federation. I attach very great importance to this. I am trying to obtain a satisfactory solution for the police officer who finds himself in this position. I think particularly of the police officer who may have served a number of years and who may be thinking of the time when he comes to retire and the last five years which he may have to serve."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D; 6th March, 1972, c. 2298.]
Following on that undertaking, the question which I put to my hon. and learned Friend the present Minister of State, Home Office is: what has been the outcome of those discussions? I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to make a statement which will reassure those police officers and their families who may be affected, because in making changes by legislation we should always be anxious to ensure that there is not personal hardship, if it can be avoided, in a public service. The House has a particular duty to observe that principle whenever we are thinking about the future of the police.

4.45 p.m.

I come now to the matter which causes me very great concern. It is a matter in which I fully agree with the Police Federation. I refer to the financial effect of combining the provisions of the Police Act, 1964, with the provisions of the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend will doubtless correct me if my attempt to describe the position is wrong. We reach the strange paradox that combined police authorities, which form the majority of police authorities in England at present, have financial autonomy; they have their own separate budgets, which need only be approved by the Home Office, which


provides a grant of 50 per cent. No local authority can say to a combined police authority "You must not spend this" or "We will not let you spend that". On the contrary, combined police authorities can precept upon their constituent councils.

Under the Police Act, 1964, in relation to what are strictly county police forces, or for the time being county borough police forces, there is no such financial autonomy. There is not even, strictly speaking, separate budgeting. When the police authority, being a committee of the county council, has made its estimates, those estimates can be altered, or cut down by either the finance committee of the county council or by the county council itself.

That in itself is unsatisfactory. It is even more unsatisfactory when it is compared with the autonomy of combined police authorities, which are the majority at present.

I greatly hope that, in view of the tremendous importance of ensuring that we have efficient police forces, those who serve on police authorities, be they representatives of the local authority or be they magistrates, can feel with confidence that nobody—except the Home Office, which has always had this right, because it makes a 50 per cent, grant—shall tinker with their estimates.

Some rational examples could be given. It might be said "We cannot afford more police vehicles this time because, if we do, we shall have to cut out that swimming pool which is intended for the public at such-and-such a place. We cannot provide the money, nor make the necessary compulsory purchase order, for the land for building a new police headquarters, because such money as we are prepared to allocate for the purchase of land is needed for other purposes", which the authority might think more important, but I say that there is hardly a more important purpose that is conceivable than the purchase of land for a new police headquarters which the police authority and the Home Office consider necessary.

Therefore, we need to preserve the financial autonomy of police authorities even when they are to become committees of local authorities under the Bill.

In conclusion, I quote what I consider to be the very apt words which are included in a long letter on this matter which was sent to me by the Secretary of the Joint Branch Board of the Police Federation which covers the Mid-Anglia Constabulary, which includes my constituency. It said:
We suggest that law and order and the maintenance of an efficient police service should be the joint responsibility of those directly concerned, namely the Home Office and the Police Authority as laid down in the Police Act, 1964 at Sections 4 and 28, and should not be subject to the approval of a third authority.

The secret is that Sections 4 and 28 refer to the financial provisions under combined authorities. Let us have the best of both worlds! By all means let us have local police forces reorganised on the same geographical basis as the reorganisation of local authorities, but let us ensure that the police committees of the councils which will be the police authorities have the financial autonomy which the police authorities of combined authorities have always had and as, in the days before 1964, the standing joint committees, which used to work very well, also had.

It is fair to point out to those who are interested in the history of the matter that the watch committees did not have the same financial autonomy. It seems that when we had trouble with the police it was generally when the police authority was a watch committee, but there was not nearly so much trouble when the police authority was a standing joint committee. Let us learn from this lesson of history!

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I wish to speak with particular reference to Amendment No. 254, in my name and the names of hon. Members on both sides of the House, in page 129, line 34, after 'counties', insert 'or parts thereof'. Unless the Amendment is accepted by the Government I shall ask for a separate vote.
I appreciate what the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) has said, and the concern which he and no fewer than three other right hon. Members opposite, all of whom have intimate, detailed knowledge of the workings of the Home Office and the police force, have expressed at the effect that the Bill will have on police


organisation. Their Amendment seeks to delete the Clause from the Bill. It is, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree, an exploratory Amendment. If it were voted upon and carried, it would leave the police in limbo. My Amendment attempts to be constructive. It would allow the Government to maintain the status quo in certain instances. There may be faults with the wording, it may be over-simplified, but if the House accepts the principle I should have no objection to another place or the parliamentary draftsman suggesting better wording.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made clear the difference between police authorities and the functioning of the police and other local government services. On page 128, under the heading "Miscellaneous functions", we see the Clause is headed "Police". At first sight, that is rather a derogatory way to describe the rôle of one of the most important services to the citizens of this country. But the Government are not attempting to be derogatory, and I do not charge them with that. In a sense they are correct to use the description "Miscellaneous functions".
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has clearly pointed out that the police are no longer wholly or strictly speaking a local government service. Police services are administered almost entirely either by a combined police authority on which there are two-thirds county councillors and one-third magistrates, or, in the biggest police force, London, by a service which is outside local government altogether. The police are not a wholly local government service in the sense that many of the other services which we have been discussing clearly are.
What are the effects of the Bill on our police forces? The Government are insisting on a rigid conformity of police areas being coterminous with the new county boundaries. My Amendment will give the Government an opportunity to introduce a little flexibility in the interests of the police forces and of efficient policing.
Many forces will be grievously affected by the effects of the Bill. The hon. Member for Tyne mouth (Dame Irene Ward), who stayed up late last night and is here again today, is concerned about

the effect that the Bill will have on the Northumberland and Durham police forces. The Yorkshire police forces will be severely affected. The Somerset and Avon and the present Bristol forces are seriously affected. The West Midlands police force will virtually go out of existence. Most of all, from my point of view as a Lancashire Member and Lancastrian, what I consider to be the finest police force in the world, the Lancashire police force, which pioneered pocket radios, panda cars and the beat system and has given so many good constructive ideas on efficient policing not only to this country but to the world, will be divided six ways by the effects of the Bill. There will be a tiny rump of a Lancashire police force which has been a proud and efficient force.
Only five years ago, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, there was a major upheaval which the police endured and the Police Federation accepted, and the police authorities got together to make it work, largely because of the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), the then Home Secretary, and by a lot of co-operation in the areas concerned. In the debate on 9th February, 1967, my right hon. Friend was answering points which were made purely on what would happen when the local government reorganisation was introduced. My right hon. Friend, explaining why he had at that time prior to the report, carried on with the amalgamation of the police forces, said:
Had one done nothing, one would have been confronted with a strong demand to go much further and perhaps to take the police away from local government altogether—a result which I would have deplored. I think it right to proceed as quickly as one can with the existing powers. When we get the Report"—
that is the local government report—
we shall look at the matter again and see whether the areas it recommends broadly speaking accord with police areas of about the number we are suggesting. But I am sure that we do not want to go back to a larger number of police authorities than the 40 or so which will result from my proposals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 1947.]
From that it is quite clear that my right hon. Friend and the House at that time did not expect that when those proposals came before the House a second major


upheaval in many of the authorities would take place. That will be the effect on the police forces which I have mentioned.
The Police Federation, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, is seriously concerned about the effect of these proposals. This is the view not only of the forces affected, but of the Federation generally and the joint branch boards even in areas which are not directly affected, because it is most concerned, and rightly so, with the policing of the whole of the country. It is concerned about the effects upon the police, for they could be most serious.

5.0 p.m.

There is a rule—I believe it is Rule 23—which permits a police officer in a force which is to be transferred to stand on his rights and to insist that he is not moved miles away from the area of the force which be joined. It has worked with some limited success, but it has not always worked, because although a man might stand on his rights in a particular area it might mean that he takes that much longer to become a sergeant or an inspector. His promotion prospects are certainly affected by his action, and that is wrong. When a man joins a police force he knows the force he wants to join and he joins it for the geographical area it covers or because he likes that type of police work. It is wrong that a man who chooses the Somerset constabulary because he wants to be a good, efficient, rural policeman should suddenly find himself transferred and patrolling Bristol docks as a result of the Bill. That is the sort of thing that could happen.

We are as a House concerned with the effects of this major reorganisation on the policing of this country. It is a proper matter for concern because there could be serious effects on crime in an area as a result of the upheaval that a second reorganisation could create. The forces have been brought together and have created their own expertise. They have created the task forces and regional crime squads and they know the crime patterns of their individual areas. They have built up their expertise from long experience, they know where the criminals are likely to be found, and the pattern of crime that is likely to emerge in the near future. The war on crime is the serious concern of every hon. Member. It is

wrong to break up that expertise and to separate it out among a number of forces. The police work not merely by records and mechanical aids but by human beings doing an extremely good job in the service of the country and using their memories and experience in deciding what is likely to happen. Those individuals will be scattered to the winds as a result of the reorganisation under the Bill.

My Amendment has a simple objective. It would allow the Government to maintain the status quo in a service which is not administered purely as a local government service. I am seeking to give the Government flexibility to allow existing police authorities and police areas, at least for the time being, to remain intact. It is possible for that to happen and for representatives of the new counties to be appointed to existing police authorities. Many forces could therefore remain intact with an enormous benefit and boost to their morale and, more important, it would be of enormous importance and benefit to the public who rely so much upon efficient policing.

I am speaking to the Amendment from the Opposition Front Bench, as a Front Bench spokesman, but I must make clear that it is not an official Opposition Amendment. One hon. Member from the Government benches has his name to it. Many hon. Members voted for the Amendment in Committee when the Division resulted in a tie of 19 votes to 19. I urge hon. Members from all sides who are concerned with the efficient policing of their areas to support the Amendment in the Lobby regardless of which party they belong to. In no way am I moving the Amendment in a party political sense. In this House, thank God, we have always treated the police service as a non-party political matter.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Both the speeches so far show what a totally non-partisan subject the police forces are. I add my general support to those speeches. It is an error generally to mix up police reorganisation at this stage with local government reorganisation. The report on regional government has yet to be produced. I expect that it will be published some time in the autumn and it may give rise to quite different attitudes. Certainly the Police Federation is in favour of the idea of a regional police force. I do not want to debate


that aspect now but it shows that there are issues yet to be decided.
There has already been a major reorganisation of many police forces over the last five or six years and the Amendment spoken to by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) seems eminently reasonable. His drafting may not be precise but it gives the Government time to make the correct proposal in the House of Lords and to suggest that there should be a stay of execution on reorganisation. Staffordshire is not affected very much but there is a strong feeling among police officers there that there should be a stay of execution.
In Lancashire, however, and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne mouth (Dame Irene Ward), there is strong and violent feeling about the matter. This is especially so in Lancashire where there will be a destruction of one of the best police forces in the country. Perhaps it will not be destroyed, but the reorganisation is bound to have an effect upon promotion, housing and all other problems which face the police. In some areas police recruiting is very good. In my part of the country it is excellent. But recruiting is a very delicate matter and in London it is still way behind target.
It is a dangerous precedent that the power of expenditure should be totally in political hands. I hope that the serious advice given to my right hon. and hon. Friends from both sides of the House is pursued and that the matter is re-examined in the House of Lords so that when the Bill returns to the Commons it will have been amended to give the police forces and the Home Office a far freer hand, rather than being tied by the folly of the Bill.

Mr. Alfred Morris: There are many hon. and right hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate and I shall not speak at great length. My point of view is well known to hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House. As the House is aware, I have the honour to work with the Police Federation as its parliamentary adviser and as successor to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I think it will

be generally agreed that Amendment No. 254 was introduced admirably, as well as very powerfully, by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). I congratulate him on the care with which he prepared his submission. He was eminently right to argue that the Amendment is concerned with flexibility. This has been the nub of his case in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House. It will be recalled that my hon. Friend was most unfortunate not to carry his Amendment in Standing Committee. There was then an equality of votes. The Chairman of the Standing Committee was the hon. Member for South end, East (Sir S. McAdden). In keeping with tradition, the hon. Member for South end, East gave his casting vote against my hon. Friend's Amendment. The House will, however, have noted that the hon. Member for South end, East is now a firm supporter of the Amendment, in fellowship with hon. Members on both sides of the House. If I may say so, there did not appear to be an equality of voices in the Standing Committee. It seemed to me that there were more voices for the Amendment than against. It was, therefore, all the more unfortunate that the Amendment was lost because there was a mere equality of votes. We won the argument and lost the vote.
It is to the great credit of the Police Federation that its case in support of Amendment No. 254 has been argued mainly on grounds of operational efficiency. It is equally to its credit that it has argued its case with one voice. There has been no example of any police force opting out because it is not immediately or directly affected. Men and women in every force, whether they are affected or not, have taken the Federation's view that the matter is one of principle and of national importance.
As we all know, important issues of welfare and morale, as well as other issues, are at stake in this debate. Not the least of these other issues is the deep sense of loyalty shown by police officers to the communities which they now serve.
Another important issue is the lack of meaningful consultation with the Police Federation before the Government made up their minds. This is part of the reason why we heard talk of a bloody-minded police force if the Bill went through unamended. But I must emphasise that operational efficiency has been


the Federation's principal concern in all its submissions on the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), when he was Home Secretary, sharply reduced the number of police forces in this country. He had the full-hearted support of the Police Federation in so doing. This was because my right hon. Friend argued his case on grounds of operational efficiency. In the public interest he was, therefore, entitled to the support he received from the Federation.
If my right hon. Friend's recent reorganisation was based on operational efficiency, that is not the purpose of the current proposals. Indeed, highly efficient police forces are to be crudely broken up. It would deceive the House if I did not emphasise that this part of the Bill is a source of very deep concern to the Police Federation. The Federation's leaders have never sought to conceal their concern. The Minister of State will readily accept that the Federation's representatives in discussions at the Home Office have emphasised again and again their very deep misgivings on the proposed further reorganisation. The Federation's leaders knew full well that they would have been acting unrepresentatively of their membership if they had tried to conceal their anxieties.

5.15 p.m.

At the recent Eastbourne conference of the Police Federation, Inspector Reg Gale, the much respected national chairman of the Federation, said:
We are quite clear regarding the views of our membership from reactions around the country, from a special consultation less than a month ago, and from a debate at this conference.
All but two branch boards were represented at the special consultation on reorganisation held at Scotland Yard on 27th April of this year. Inspector Gale went on to say:
…it seems that the Government will persist in its attitude to tie the police service operationally to local government areas which have certainly not been defined in the context of police operational efficiency and which, indeed, seem in some instances to work directly against that end.
That is a very serious statement to have come from a highly distinguished representative of the police officers of this country.

Why force these changes through at this time, while the Crowther Commission is continuing its studies? What is our position if the Crowther Commission agrees with the Police Federation? Are we then to be subjected to yet a third upheaval?

May I quote some words which are very relevant to this debate? It has been said that
it is important for efficiency and good industrial relations that employees should feel that…their views are sought on existing practices and on proposed changes that will affect them.
These are not my words. They are not the words of any of my right hon. or hon. Friends. They are not the words of the Police Federation. They come from the Government's own consultative document entitled Code of Industrial Relations Practice. It is wholly wrong that there was no meaningful consultation with the Police Federation before the Government made up their minds to go through with the proposals in this Bill.

There is no need whatever for party animus on this Amendment. I rejoice that hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown the same degree of concern to protect what is efficient and good in the police organisations of today. What hurts the police helps the criminal. For this Amendment to be defeated would hurt police efficiency. If anyone is in any doubt, let him ask the policemen and policewomen of this country. Why on earth should we even contemplate a step that can result in the breaking up of efficient police forces?

In recently enacting my Bill, which is now the Police Act, 1972, the House has acknowledged both the Federation's maturity and the high sense of responsibility of its leadership. The Minister of State is a reasonable man. I urge him to cast his brief aside and to accept Amendment No. 254. If he does so, he will earn the respect of hon. Members on both sides of the House, as well as of police officers throughout the country. There are those on both sides of the House who will thank him warmly if he responds constructively to the plea we are making in this debate. I appeal to all hon. Members to support Amendment No. 254. This is one Amendment that I trust will be decided on the merits of the speeches we have heard in this debate.


I ask no more on behalf of the Police Federation.

The House itself is sovereign in this matter. Let us exercise our sovereignty in the public interest and in support of a very find fellowship of men and women who work in the public service of this country.

Dame Irene Ward: I am glad to have had the opportunity to hear the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) in moving the Amendment and the speech of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) because, although in the police world, if I may call it that, I have held only the position of magistrate on the Newcastle bench, I have always supported and admired the service rendered by our police force. Having had one reorganisation in Northumberland and Durham, the police in my part of the country, when it was suggested that there should be another reorganisation, were very much opposed to it, and rightly so, in my view.
The position is rather difficult for me because, although I am delighted to have so many Secretaries of State as Members of Parliament in my area, as an ordinary back bencher I am not much helped as a result. In my part of the country we have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, we have my right hon. and learned Friend who is "Mr. Europe", and we have one of the Under-Secretaries of State for Defence in the person of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Lord Lambton). Also, I have in my area a Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party. In Middlesbrough we have a new Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe), who, I am sure, will be a very live and good Member. But the House will realise that in matters of this kind, a bit of knowledge and experience can be very helpful.
I was, therefore, in some difficulty. None of the key people representing the Government in my area, whatever they might say in the Cabinet, was able to talk to me about it. Although they are always awfully nice, I am devoted to them, and, on the whole, they let me say what I want, I could not turn to any of my

right hon. and hon. Friends in my area when I wanted to represent the strong views of the Northumberland and Durham police.
However, I thought that matter out and, still having some friends—happily, even after all the years I have been in the House, I still have some friends in the North of England—I got in touch with my lord lieutenant. I said to him "You are a friend of mine. What can I do to help the police?", and he said he would put me in touch with the chairman of the police committee of Northumberland. Again, I was in some difficulty because I represent the county borough of Tynemouth in the House. We had always had an excellent chief constable, but in the original reorganisation he was swept away. So there I was. I got in touch with the chairman of the police committee of Northumberland. I shall not say what he thought, or what that committee thought, of the second reorganisation of our police service proposed by the then Home Secretary.
After a good deal of thought, I decided to ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), then Home Secretary, if I could come and talk to him. As always, he was most helpful, most delightful, and we had a very good time together. We had the maps and papers out. I explained that I had every intention to stand up for my police in the Northern area, who did not approve of the new reorganisation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet assured me, very charmingly, that he would consider everything that I had said, but, he said, "I must have a little time to talk to the local people." Fair enough. Unfortunately, all Secretaries of State, however competent and helpful they are, seem to take a lot of time. My right hon. Friend did not tell me whether the issue which he would be discussing with the local people would relate to this Local Government Bill or would be the matter on which I had made strong representations, that is, the proposed reorganisation of our police force.
Then, unfortunately—very unfortunately, I think—my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet departed from the scene before he had been able to let me know the result of his conversations. However, I wish to put on


record how much I appreciate the fact that he wrote to me on 18th July. I do not move in Home Office circles—fortunately for the Home Office, I am sure—and I was very pleased to receive this letter, and I know that our police forces in the North of England will greatly appreciate that at a time of great stress of circumstances my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet wrote to me on this issue.
It is a complicated matter. My right hon. Friend said:
As you know, the question as I see it is whether the new counties of Northumberland and Tyneside alone should be combined for police purposes, or whether there should be a combination of the three counties, Northumberland, Tyneside and Durham. Bearing in mind your strong objections…".
Here, I must point out that I was not really talking about the Local Government Bill. This was the complication. I was talking about the proposed reorganisation of the police. However, my right hon. Friend went on:
Bearing in mind your strong objections to the latter solution, I should be prepared to accept the former"—
that was my position—
if the local authorities agree. But at present both the Durham and the Northumberland Police Authorities have told me that they wish the existing police areas to be preserved"—
which seems to fit in with what the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) said, as adviser to the Police Federation—
and that they hope the Bill will be amended to enable this to be done. Until this amendment has been dealt with, it does not seem right to put to the authorities proposals which would be relevant only if their attempt to have the Bill amended is unsuccessful.
The House will see how complicated this matter is for me. I was not involved with the Local Government Bill because I always understood from my right hon. Friend who had been dealing with the Bill that he was not concerned with the police authorities.
I was in a difficult position when I received that letter dated 18th July from my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet. I was not arguing with him about the Local Government Bill. But he had in the meantime arranged to have the situation looked at. This is what he said:
Mark Carlisle recently met the Chairman and Clerk of the Durham Police Authority, and tomorrow he is seeing a deputation from

Northumberland. The proceedings are taking longer than I would have wished because of an amendment to the Local Government Bill.
I understand—and here I speak off the cuff—that the Durham police force is relatively happy with the proposals. In the original reorganisation, to which everyone in the police service in the North objected, the Durham police force was to be included, but that excellent force believes that it will be able to operate quite satisfactorily under the Bill's proposals.
5.30 p.m.
When the Northumberland police force was reorganised, Tynemouth lost its chief constable. Tynemouth has always had an excellent police force and the relations between the public and the police have always been perfect. But Tynemouth is now to become the centre of metropolitan area No. 2, No. 1 being Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I am pleased to be able to say that these two are to have equal status.
I believe that I know what the wishes of the Northumberland police are. and they are certainly not to have what was originally proposed. The Northumberland police want to continue to operate in the same general area. I think that this is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet suggested in his letter.
I understand that the Durham police have not made representations, but we do not want to have the Northumberland, Tyneside and Durham forces amalgamated. I have available to me all sorts of grapevines which I do not disclose to Ministers. I have my secrets as they have theirs, and if I cannot see Cabinet papers I do not let them know what I have been told. But I know that the police force in Northumberland does not want the three counties to be combined for police purposes.
I am the only Member able to speak freely on this matter, because Secretaries of State and deputy chairmen of the Conservative Party are not free to speak their minds quite so openly. I have to speak alone in urging that in Northumberland the police want the old county to remain, with the metropolitan area which my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet called Tyneside county, which is very exciting, and the other metropolitan area, so that we have a total area which is easily controllable.
Our chief constable for Northumberland was "the tops", and we were proud of him. We want what the police want. I should not be able to suppot any proposals with which the police disagreed. My stand in this matter is that the police should have the No. 1 priority, and I regard it as most unfortunate that I was unable to reach final agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet before he left office. The Minister of State, however, met the deputation from Northumberland. I have not seen any of its members since, and the Minister of State has not let me know what he was told, but I have a pretty shrewd idea, knowing the views of the chairman of the police committee about the reorganisation.
In my part of the world people are outspoken, which must be annoying for many people, but we believe that it is far better to state one's feelings clearly. I hope that the Government will not try to force on the police an organisation that the police themselves do not want. I do not know anything about police organisation in the rest of the country, but in my part of the world we have always had a high regard for the police, and on this occasion I am the only voice able to speak up for the police in my area. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to tell me that he is able to accept what I originally suggested to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet, who was a helpful person in discussions of such matters.
I do not often vote against the Government, but I will do it in a good cause, and I regard this as a matter of great importance. There are sufficient people of standing in the area—councillors, magistrates and so on—who want the police to be content with any proposed reorganisation, and if I have to vote against the Government, I will do so. But now that they have heard my views and have met a deputation, I hope that they will be able to change their minds, and I believe that people ought to change their minds on subjects that matter. I support what the police want, and what the police want will get my vote.

Mr. Michael Cocks: The House always admires the independent spirit of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). We

are always pleased to welcome the Patronage Secretary to our debates, but I hope that he will not slink round among back bench Members opposite and put the muscle on hon. Members who are not so independent minded as the hon. Lady.
In Committee the Minister of State said about the amalgamation of Somerset with Avon:
I do not think that that is likely to be a controversial amalgamation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 6th March. 1972; c. 2295.]
I wish that the Minister had had the opportunity of speaking to some of the policemen in Bristol and of finding out whether it was contentious and of examining some of the correspondence which I have had on this subject. I assure him that, while the Bristol police are unfailingly courteous to everybody, they would have made it plain to him that there are very strong feelings about this matter.
The projected reorganisation in Bristol stems from the butchering of the proud city of Bristol which is to take place as a result of the Bill. It is a further example of a highly efficient service in Bristol being threatened by reorganisation. I must say a few words for the Bristol police because they cannot speak for themselves. We owe it to them to make sure that their view is heard. Their position is summed up in a letter written to me by a constituent who said:
The main reason for any person preferring a City to a County Police Force is that one is enabled to set up home in a house and area of one's own choice, knowing that wherever one's duty is, it is possible to live in the same house.
There have been many similar representations deploring the possible upheaval of families, with resulting expense.
The effect on morale will be very serious if this reorganisation takes place. If men who want to dedicate their lives to public service are prepared to move around, they can join the Armed Forces. But if a man is prepared to do a stint in the police force, his wishes should be respected.
There has been a substantial local campaign in this matter, led by Alderman Bert Wilcox, a highly respected figure and a former Lord Mayor of Bristol. He made the point that officers who had chosen to work in Bristol might well find


themselves posted outside the city if the reorganisation took place. He says:
And if they don't want to go it could well affect their promotion prospects".
That point has been made by several speakers. I hope that we shall not get the platitudinous claptrap from the Minister that this will not take place, because we all know that people who stand up for their rights and say, "I do not wish to move", often find that they are discriminated against. It is felt that independent officers will be penalised and, not to put too fine a point on it, that those who are prepared to do a bit of creeping and to shift around will get promotion in preference. The Bristol Federation is not happy about this matter. The Chairman of the Bristol Federation said that the proposed merger was viewed "with disquiet".
I appeal to the Minister to give way on the Amendment, which was so ably moved not only today but in Committee, first, on the ground of efficiency, because we have a highly efficient police force in Bristol which understands the problems of an urban area which are quite different from those of the surrounding counties; and, secondly, on the ground of humanity and understanding for people who make many sacrifices by going into this branch of public service.
Should my colleagues on the benches opposite who represent Bristol constituencies join me in the Lobby, I would be more than delighted. They did not support the city of Bristol over the question of the Avon reorganisation. On this occasion I ask them to keep the Bristol police in Bristol and to vote with their feet for the Bristol police.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Peter Blaker: I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) and others who have said that we should approach this debate without political animus. I find it easier to do that because I recall that the arguments which he and others who have been arguing the same case as himself have used today resemble the arguments which my colleagues and I used against the proposed creation of the present Lancashire police force in 1967 and 1968.
We said that the police forces with which we were concerned did not want

amalgamation. We said that efficiency would suffer. We said, as the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) has said, that we should not break up the expertise of forces which know their area. We said that there should not be any rigid conformity about the new arrangement. We said that the effect on morale would be bad. We pressed on the then Government precisely the suggestion which the hon. Member for Widnes has pressed today, but it was turned down. I commend to hon. Members the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), then Home Secretary, on 9th February, 1967, and the reasons which he gave for turning it down. Because of the time, I will not read the relevant passage.
Now hon. Members who are pressing the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Widnes are saying that the police forces which were created as a result of amalgamation a few years ago are very efficient. Their morale does not seem to have suffered. Expertise docs not seem to have been lost. Just as we were wrong in our dire predictions of disaster in those days, I believe that hon. Members who are predicting disaster now may well be wrong, too.

Mr. Oakes: The difference is this. Then we were amalgamating smaller forces into a greater and more efficient whole. Now we are splitting the force in Lanacashire into six parts.

Mr. Blaker: Whether "greater" means more efficient is very much in dispute.
Many of my constituents have had doubts about whether the local government proposals for Lancashire in the Bill are right. But, assuming that we shall have the new Lancashire as embodied in the Bill, I have no doubt that the right solution for the Lancashire police is that they should conform geographically with the new county. I make no criticism of the present chief constable, who is a personal friend of mine—at least so far. I represent part of the town which was the home town of the late Superintendent Gerald Richardson, who represented the finest traditions of the Lancashire police force. I still believe that the old Blackpool police force was even more efficient than the present Lancashire police force. Certainly its crime detection rate was higher. At any rate, it has


loyally accepted the changes which were brought about in 1968.
In those days one argument which we pressed on the Labour Government was that the proposed merger of the police forces in Lancashire was premature because there was sitting a Royal Commission on Local Government which would soon report, and we should await the report. The Labour Government turned down that argument, so it is not now open to hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that a further reorganisation would be catastrophic. If that is their view now, they should not have made those reorganisations at that time.

Mr. Denis Howell: (Birmingham, Small Heath): The difference between then and now is that the 1966 reorganisation which was carried out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) had the full support of the Police Federation and its complete co-operation in implementing it, whereas now the Police Federation is totally opposed to a second reorganisation so soon after the first. That is an entirely different situation.

Mr. Blaker: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the police would fail to co-operate in whatever decision this House in its wisdom might take. My own experience at that time was limited to the Blackpool force, and I do not believe that the then move was very popular in Blackpool.
If the plans to make police forces coterminous with the new counties go through, as I believe in general they should, there may be difficulties for individual members of the police forces. As a former member of a public service, I am the last person to belittle the difficulties of officers of the police force and their families, but I have no doubt that arrangements will be made to ensure that the disturbances are as few as possible, and I await with interest what my hon. Friend may have to say about that.
The alternative for Lancashire is to continue with the existing force. That proposal is difficult to support. After local government reform the force, in addition to Lancasire, would have to cover parts of four other counties—Cumbria, Cheshire, the new Manchester metropolitan area and the new Meseryside

metropolitan area. That is a bizarre prospect to contemplate. One of the main objects of local government reform is precisely to avoid the continuation of joint bodies which we have had to create piecemeal in the past. According to all the advice I have been able to obtain, joint bodies are less satisfactory in terms of financial and democratic control than would be a new county which would have direct responsibility for its force.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) suggest that we should preserve the financial autonomy of the police authorities and that it is unsatisfactory for the police authority to be responsible to the county. That is a questionable argument. It is tenable only if we say that the police function is different in kind from every other local government function, and I do not think we can go as far as that. I accept that the police function is one of the most important, but the argument involves saying that we have to say that the local authorities we are creating should have control only of the unimportant functions and not of the important ones. Is that why we are re-organising local government? I do not think it is. Local government reorganisation is an uncomfortable process, but one benefit from it is the creaton of authorities which will contain people of sufficient calibre to accept responsibility for financial matters which affect the police as well as other services.
To conclude, the size of the police force of the proposed Lancashire county will certainly be adequate; it will be one of the larger police forces. Our object is to make local government more effective and to create a lasting system. We are not creating a system which will last for a year or two; we are thinking in terms of decades. It would be ridiculous not to make the new Lancashire county responsible for its own force.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The weakness in the argument of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) is that he starts from the wrong end. In discussing the future reorganisation of the police we should start by asking what is the most efficient police unit, not how the police unit fits into the reorganisation of local government. I have


a fairly open mind on this matter, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister prove to us that the new organisation proposed under the Bill will produce a more efficient police force than we have at present. I suspect that this may not be so.
There have been two major reorganisations in a short time. In some places county borough police forces have been amalgamated with the county and then part of the county has been transferred to another county. A man may serve in three different police forces within a period of five years, and this can have an unsettling effect on him.
I am not convinced that the 1967 reorganisation, which I supported much against the wishes of many of my city councillors, has produced a more efficient police force. I am not sure that the replacement of the policeman on the beat by the Panda car has necessarily led to an increase in crime detection. The regionalisation procedures may have helped in the reduction and detection of major crime, but I do not think that the amount of petty theft and housebreaking has decreased or is likely to decrease now that the policeman on the beat has been replaced. Many of us regret the virtual passing of the policeman on his beat. That may be the price we have to pay for increased technology, but I am not sure that it is worth it.
Will the Minister tell us how this second reorganisation will increase police efficiency? I hope that he will not tell us that it is administratively tidy and fits in nicely with the duties of counties; that is irrelevant. The real question is whether it will increase the efficiency of the police. I shall be pleased to support him if he can convince me that it will.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I wish to refer to the problems of the West Midlands. I feel that since the West Midlands experienced local government reorganisation only in 1966, it is wrong that the area should be disturbed again so soon. This matter has caused great misgivings in the area, and there is particularly strong feeling about the proposals in the Bill to amalgamate the police force of the West Midlands with the police forces of Birmingham and Coventry.
This proposal would mean that the police force there would cover a population of 2,700,000 people, in an area stretching from Wolverhampton to Coventry. It would involve a police force of some 6,000 men. I cannot understand why the Government are going ahead with this policy since it is a complete contradiction of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Police in 1962, which advocated that we should have police forces of between 1,000 and 4,000 serving populations of between 500,000 and 2 million.
At the time of the local government changes in the West Midlands in the 1960s Lord Brooke, the then Home Secretary, said that the Government had looked very carefully at the prospect of merging the West Midlands police force with the forces of Birmingham and Coventry and did not feel that this would make for greater efficiency. The Government then turned down this suggestion. I am curious to know why the present Government have had a change of heart. By creating enormous police forces, we shall be in danger of creating a national police force—a prospect to which I am totally opposed. I do not believe that bigger necessarily means better.
In the new enlarged police force envisaged for the West Midlands metropolitan area there will be a great danger of remoteness between senior officers and the men on the beat. It is essential that the chief constable should attempt to get to know as many of his men as possible. In a very large and densely populated area visits by a chief constable to his subdivisions can surely be only fleeting. This is bound to affect the morale of the police. They will feel that their senior officer is too remote and that they will have no opportunity of getting to know him better and of him getting to know them better.
I was not very impressed by the arguments put forward in Committee by the former Minister of State, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir Richard Sharpies). He then said:
One proposal which is made is that in the new West Midlands area one should have two police forces, one for each of its main part. We have considered this suggestion very carefully, both on the grounds of police efficiency and with regard to the principle of the relationship between the local authority, which should be at county level, and the police force which serves it.


On both grounds we have come to the definite conclusion that the new West Midland force should not be divided in that way."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 6th March, 1972; c. 2298.]
There is surely no point in making such a statement unless it can be proved that it will be better for the area. It is no good saying that the merger is in the interests of efficiency unless facts and figures are given to prove it. It is a complete change of attitude from that adopted by the then Home Secretary, Lord Brooke.
I know that many other hon. Members wish to take part in this debate and I wish to say only this to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), whom I have known for a long time—indeed we have been great friends over the years. I am completely opposed to the merger of the West Midlands police force with the Birmingham and Coventry forces. It is a move which has been strongly opposed by the West Midlands Police Authority. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) was right to say that this Amendment offers an opportunity to take a more effective line on police authorities. Therefore, I have to say, with great regret, to my hon. and learned Friend that if in his reply he says that the merger is to go ahead, I shall vote against my party tonight.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: In these debates which involve discussion of Home Office circles, as the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) would say, hon. Members whatever their viewpoint come to one conclusion; namely, that the best way to combat crime is to increase the efficiency of the police. This has nothing to do with increasing the power of the police, but everybody would agree that an efficient police force is essential if we are to combat crime effectively.
Here we have a situation in which the Lancashire police force, which is one of the finest and certainly one of the most efficient forces in the world, will now be split—for no other reason than that of administrative tidiness. I feel very strongly about the Lancashire police force because my constituency was chosen to be the pioneer in the beat system. Everybody knows that Lancashire origin-

ally agreed to the reorganisation proposed by the then Home Secretary because people felt that efficiency would grow from it, and indeed this has happened. Therefore, the reason they are now opposed to the organisation being mucked about once again is that they know it will not increase efficiency but will be to its detriment.
The Amendment does not ask for anything fantastic. It gives the Government breathing space to allow those forces which have been proved to be efficient to remain in being. It in no way takes away the democratic accountability which the police still want to retain. I do not accept the case put forward by the police just because it happens to come from the Police Federation; indeed, there are many proposals from the Federation which I have spoken against in the past. However, I think that the Federation's case on this matter is quite correct, and has been made out. Therefore, I feel that the Minister of State, who is always referred to as a reasonable man, will show his reasonableness on this occasion. This is a non-party point and I hope he will accept the Amendment.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was horrified to learn the full impact of the proposals in the Bill on police forces throughout the country. I was even more horrified at the effect it would have on Lancashire. I was born and brought up in Lancashire and have always taken the keenest interest in the police force. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State also knows the force well, and I very much hope that on this occasion he will throw away his brief and listen to our arguments.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) said that this debate was mainly about flexibility. I would say that it is not a debate which deals primarily with the question of flexibility, but with the morale, efficiency and career structure of the police force.
When the country faces highly mobile, high speed criminals, the last thing we want to do is to limit the range of operation of our police forces. I believe that now that we have just reached a stage at which the previous reorganisation of our local authority services is beginning to


work smoothly, it would be a complete disaster to undo these achievements and to divide our police forces into six parts. I earnestly ask my hon. and learned Friend to reconsider his decision, perhaps for the nation generally, but generally for Lancashire.

Mr. Denis Howell: This has been a fascinating debate on a matter of great concern for the safety of the public and the efficient policing of the country. It has been a debate showing a greater degree of intimate knowledge of the police and their problems than many people suspected that Members of Parliament had. What is more, it has demonstrated the very great concern of hon. Members with those problems.
I hope that the Minister of State has noted that during the entire debate only two hon. Members have been found who support the Government proposal. The geographical spread has been as equally convincing as the political spread in this House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) made it clear that he was not introducing his Amendment on behalf of the Opposition since it was an all-party Amendment. My hon. Friend was right to make that clear. I must now make it clear that the Opposition embrace the arguments and the principles contained in this all-party Amendment, and we hope that the Minister of State will indicate his willingness to accept it.
What has happened today typifies the impossible premise on which the whole of this Bill has been constructed. We saw it last night when the Government were defeated on an Amendment dealing with refuse disposal. I suspect that we may see it again shortly when we deal with libraries. The Government had the good sense to withdraw their proposals on toxic wastes. But wherever one looks at the powers and functions of local government and examines what is to happen under this Bill, to an increasing number of hon. Members the Government's proposals appear to be a nonsense since they completely undermine the purposes of the Bill. In this day and age local government functions, powers and geographical units cannot be divided up into a two-tier system in the way that the Government propose without producing a nonsense at the end of the day. This

is another case where the unitary principle or all-purpose authority is seen to be possibly the most sensible solution.
Those of us who have had anything to do with local government, as I have—indeed, I was a member of a watch committee for a number of years—knowthat the first principle that has to be determined when deciding the future of the police force is the degree of democratic accountability that the force is to have; in other words, should it be based on some form of police authority which is democratically constructed. If the answer to that is in the affirmative which, as far as I can see, is the view of the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House, the question then is whether the geographical unit of local government in the area in which the police operate forms a convenient sort of authority on which to base the police force itself.
The truth is that neither the present arrangements under which the police operate nor those proposed by the Government are satisfactory. In both cases the local government reorganisation does not produce boundaries of the kind which can produce the size and scope of the police force that is required. I thought that the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) put his finger on the point which I wish to make when he said that a much more sensible long-term solution might be to have a regional police force based on regional government considerations. However, that option is not open to us. This was a point that I made against the Bill on Second Reading. I said that it was quite illogical to be producing a Bill for the reform of local government at a time when the Crowther Committee was sitting and was likely to report shortly that our local government and national public services should be based on regional units since that was the only size that made any sense in modern condtions.

6.15 p.m.

That is one of the most pertinent criticisms that can be made of the present proposals. We regret that that option is not open to us. It is the Government's wish to push ahead with this Bill even though they know that the whole question of regional government will have to be


considered. What is more, it increases the suspicions of policemen, who are sensible and intelligent people. We had a reorganisation in 1966. We are now proposing a change. But what happens if in a year or so Crowther says that the whole organisation ought to be changed again since the only system that makes sense is to base the police force on a regional conurbation? We do not know whether the Crowther Committee will say that, but there is evidence to suggest that it will. Regional crime squads have been an important development in attempting to arrest the increase in the amount of crime. It does not take a great deal of foresight to suggest that Crowther will say that as regional crime squads have proved to be a necessity, the same argument should apply to the whole police force. However, that is not for us today, although it is a factor in our thinking in trying to decide what to do about these Amendments.

In my view that fact strengthens materially the argument for leaving matters as they are where they have been changed already and where another change may come shortly. It strengthens the eloquent argument of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), what the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) has just suggested, and the point of view put forward so authoritatively by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), speaking, as he told us, on behalf of the Police Federation.

The feelings of the police force are understandable. Policemen are human beings. They have families, homes and locations. We should be very loth to add to their housing difficulties and other problems. They are in a disciplined force. If they are obliged to join up to another force making it double or treble the size, they have to work where they are directed in the new area. They will have taken up duty and moved into houses in one part of their present police authority area. They will have placed their children in schools. All that will be disturbed, as might their promotion prospects, if they are obliged to work in another part of the authority area.

I turn to the West Midlands, which I know best. With no disrespect to the arguments that we have heard from Lan-

cashire, Yorkshire, Somerset and Northumberland, which are equally strong, the West Midlands highlights the dilemma facing us all about how we can co-ordinate local government boundaries to accord with the task facing the police.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) put the debate in a nutshell when he said that at the end of the day all that mattered was whether the Government's proposals would work. We all know that the answer to that depends very much on where one thinks the watershed of crime is within a conurbation and whether the police force is equipped to deal with it.

The West Midlands conurbation is widespread. It is much larger than any of the present police authorities, and it will be the same after the Bill has become law and the West Midlands Metropolitan Area has been established. It is a remarkably banana-shaped area, starting at Coventry and embracing Birmingham and some of the Black Country and including Wolverhampton in the south. It is a long, narrow geographical area in the middle of a wide conurbation, so the new area will not embrace the whole conurbation which has to be policed.

The matter was dealt with in Committee on 6th March. I was not present, because I was recovering from an attack of 'flu, but I read the debate with interest. The matter was put rather forcefully by the then Minister of State, who said:
All the professional advice which we have is that for efficient policing, a conurbation should be treated as one.
We are not treating the West Midlands conurbation as one, and if we do not do that now we shall no do so when the boundary changes are carried through.

The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) interrupted the Minister of State and, I thought, put his finger on the problem when he said:
But that is the very point; this is not a conurbation of that sort. It is all very well to have theories and to say that a conurbation ought to be treated in a particular way, but this is different sort of conurbation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 6th March, 1972; c. 2301.]
It is not to be equated with London. The hon. Gentleman was right.

We have heard a lot today about the great vote in Committee on that occasion, when it was 19-all. I am sorry that


when the vote was taken the hon. Member for Cannock did not find himself able to support the Amendment. It was a matter of great regret that he was not able to support in the Lobby the views which he had expressed in the debate. I notice that he is in a little trouble over that, and I shall not add to his difficulties. I have here a cutting from the Express &amp; Star of 18th July which shows that on this matter feelings in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world are very strong.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to take part in the debate. I am sorry that he did not have an opportunity to speak before I did. The hon. Gentleman explained that he was "acutely embarrassed", but he had abstained because he was a Parliamentary Private Secretary. That is a new constitutional point which I had not previously appreciated, and I hope that tonight the hon. Gentleman will join the rest of us in the Lobby if we do not get the right answer from the Minister. I trust that he will not feel inhibited about voting against the Government because he is a PPS. This is one of those rare occasions on which we have to stand up and be counted.

I hope that the Minister will accept the reasonable compromise embodied in Amendment No. 254 and will not rely upon the argument on which his predecessor relied in Committee. If the police force and police authorities are to have this reorganisation thrust upon them against their better judgment and against their wishes, the Minister should tell us what will happen if Crowther reports and suggests further changes. I want the Minister to ensure a degree of prominence for the future of the police force.

I doubt whether the Minister can give us an assurance that whatever Crowther says this degree of permanence will remain. That is why he should meet the logic of the situation and leave things as they are until we can take further stock of the position so that when we next make a move in respect of the police force we can give it the degree of permanence which it has a right to expect.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) felt it necessary to say some of the things

that he said, and I should like to emphasise that I did what I considered to be right bearing in mind all the circumstances, and bearing in mind, too, that the Amendment in question would not necessarily have achieved the West Midlands' objective that I had in mind. I had that in writing from the then Minister of State.

Mr. Blaker: In the previous Parliament seven Labour Parliamentary Private Secretaries were sacked for voting against their Government.

Mr. Cormack: I thank my hon. Friend for that brief and helpful intervention.
I accept to a large degree, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) in his eloquent introductory speech, the logic of placing local government and police boundaries together but there are certain other considerations which the Minister should take into account.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will say something about the financial provisions mentioned by my right lion, and learned Friend. These are important, and I consider the financial autonomy of police authorities to be of fundamental importance. I trust that the Minister will consider, too, whether it would be possible to have a stay of execution at least until Crowther has reported. If that cannot be done, I should like an assurance that there will be no further mergers, amalgamations or changes consequent upon Crowther for at least 10 years, because this is something which the police should not be asked to face again.
I ask the Minister to have further and special talks with the West Midlands police representatives similar to those which he apparently has had during the last few days with people from the North East. The police in the West Midlands have real problems about which they feel deeply, and they should have a further chance to explore them with the Minister.
My especial and over-riding concern is and always has been, with the individual police officer, because a police force is only as strong as the morale of its individual officers, and when they feel that their security, their career prospects, their promotion and such matters are in


jeopardy they necessarily feel frustrated and in great difficulty.
I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will tell us that the door is not shut and that before the Bill reaches another place further consideration will be given to the vital points that have been raised.
I have a tremendous admiration for the police forces of this country, and I am confident that whatever the outcome of our deliberations today it will rise to the occasion. Those who have predicted disaster or unfortunate repercussions among the officers of the force have been less than fair to them. Their case has been argued persuasively and eloquently, as it should be, but when the die is finally cast, whether this goes through as it is, or whether it goes through with certain alterations, I am confident that the police force will remain a force of which we can all be proud.
Having said that, I again ask the Minister to consider carefully the points which I have tried briefly to make.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Martin McLaren: I shall be brief because we have much to do. As a Member for a constituency in one of the larger cities I am concerned with the position of the police in borough forces which may become amalgamated with the surrounding countryside.
Like the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) I have received many letters on this subject from individual police officers. They point out what is common to all borough police men—that they always bargain to complete their whole service within the boundaries of their boroughs. That was the basis on which they joined when they were first recruited. Many of them now in their thirties are buying their houses. They have children at school and do not want to move those children. Their wives have made their friends and formed their associations in clubs and societies.
There are two kinds of people in life. There are the home birds and the nomads, just as there is a distinction in the public service between the Home Civil Service and the Diplomatic Service. The borough police count among the home birds.
It is worth remembering that there is no power to make them serve outside their area while the forces are constituted as they are at present. Even on an amalgamation, they have the security afforded by Regulation 23 of the Police Regulations, 1971, which provides than on an amalgamation a police officer will not be required to carry out duties so far away that he would be obliged to move his home.
I have made inquiries of different sources about the likely effects of amalgamations on moves of home. As I understand it, the difficulty arises with what might be described as a rather small pocket where only a few officers are employed, and if they are amalgamated with a wider territory it may be necessary to ask some of them in the future to move. But in a large city, such as Bristol, with a force of nearly 1,000 men, I hope that I am right in not expecting that there would be any trouble or any compulsory moves. After all, there would still be a requirement of the public service to employ the same number of people in that or in any other city.
I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for an assurance that, following the enactment of the Bill, there is no intention to diminish or whittle away the protection afforded by Regulation 23 so as to oblige members of police forces to move their homes. In the Clause there is nothing compulsory about any amalgamations. The power to make amalgamation schemes is completely discretionary and permissive. The Clause states:
An amalgamation scheme may be approved or made under this Act.
There is no compulsion on the passing of the Bill to do anything. I hope that there will be a pause for reflection.
As has been said, it may turn out that regional forces on a wider basis will be the plan for the future. For instance, in my part of the world it may not be the best plan to have a separate force for the new county of Avon, and some police officers suggest that it would be better to have one for Gloucester shire, Avon and Somerset combined. Those are questions which should be and, I know, will be discussed with representatives of the Police Federation. We should take it slowly and carefully and try as best we can to bring the good will and sympathy


of individual police officers with us in what eventually is planned to be done.

Mr. John Farr: One of the advantages of being almost the last speaker in a lengthy debate of this kind is that one has a very good idea of what most hon. Members want. On this occasion I shall be brief. The views of the majority of speakers accord with my wishes. I join with most hon. Members on both sides of the House in urging my hon. and learned Friend to support the change recommended in Amendment No. 254. One of the disadvantages of being almost the last speaker, however, is that all the arguments have been made previously, and probably far more efficiently and effectively than I can make them.

Mr. Cormack: No.

Mr. Farr: We shall have to wait and see.
Possibly the House may be interested in a fresh angle on which I can put my case briefly. In Leicestershire we have a very good police force, the Leicestershire and Rutland Constabulary. It has urged me to support Amendment No. 254 and to urge it upon the Minister for this reason. Leicestershire and Rutland Constabulary is not affected greatly, if at all, by the proposals in the present upheaval. But its experience in recent years, between 1966 and 1969, has convinced it that a further upheaval of this nature in other county constabularies would have a further disastrous effect upon efficiency. Perhaps "disastrous" is too strong a term to use, and I do not wish to exaggerate. But there is not a shadow of doubt in the minds of the Leicestershire and Rutland Constabulary, or in my mind, that the violent upheavals the Constabulary suffered between 1966 and 1969 affected its efficiency.
For instance, efficiency is affected where arrangements are transferred from one authority to another near its boundary involving special installations of high risk and great importance, such as prisons and responsibility for security in borstals and certain high-risk establishments of that nature. There was a loss of efficiency, too, because one of the effects of the 1966–69 upheaval was a fallback in recruitment, which led in some areas to the numbers of the police force being below

par and to a hesitancy on the part of members of the public to join the police. If a force is below establishment, that leads to a lack of efficiency.
Finally, there is the human angle which has been touched upon during the debate, concerning policemen who live in the fringe areas, married men who, perhaps, have put in 20 years service with their force. They are caused a great deal of anxiety and worry, as are their families. With that sort of concern being experienced in any police force, a certain degree of loss of efficiency occurs.
I strongly urge my hon. and learned Fiend to think again and correctly to assess the views expressed today. I urge him, at the very least, to wait until Crowther reports and preferably to wait another decade so that the police forces have time to settle down within their only recently established boundaries before they have another shaking up.

Mr. John Hannam: Like the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell), I am somewhat undecided on this matter, even after this interesting debate. I have for long felt that, if we are to contain the growth of crime in the provinces and the regions, we must take steps once again to create the coverage given by the man on the beat—the policeman known and respected locally and feared by many of the criminals and vandals who cause so much trouble in society.
If we are to give the police the confidence in their own future and the security of tenure that they need, we must not plunge them into a new series of amalgamations and reorganisations. Some amalgamations have already taken place. In my region, Devon merged with Exeter; then Devon and Exeter merged with Plymouth and Cornwall. The members of the Devon and Cornwall Force, who have experienced the complete upheaval involved in an amalgamation—with new working systems, new promotion structures, new systems of education for their children, and so on—do not wish to see members of forces in other areas subjected to the same difficulties.
If such changes are necessary, our unsurpassable police force should be protected by Regulation 23 of the Police


Regulations, 1971, which affords protection to officers who are statutorily transferred to another force. I am not convinced that the police structure should be further altered at present. I would rather see recruitment continue to increase and the man on the beat returned to parishes and communities.
I await with great interest the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State which I hope will help me to decide on this issue.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The debate began with a speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) on the Amendment aimed to delete Clause 191, an Amendment which my right hon. and learned Friend said was of a probing nature. From then onwards the debate has turned on the Amendment propounded by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) on the narrower point of the effect of the changes in the boundaries of the police forces as a result of local government reorganisation.
My right hon. and learned Friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) referred to the question of the financial effects of the Bill when enacted. It is true that, as a result of previous amalgamations and of county boroughs having been merged into county forces, most forces are combined forces under the 1964 Act and, therefore, have a police authority with precepting powers. This has come about only as a result of those amalgamations. In the past, in most cases the police authority was a committee of the county or county borough authority.

Sir D. Renton: For the record my hon. and learned Friend must get this right. The standing joint committees which covered all the county forces were not committees of local authorities; they were entirely independent local authorities.

Mr. Carlisle: The standing joint committees were independent police authorities, but the watch committees were committees of local authorities.
I concede at once that in areas which are not to be amalgamated the police authority will be co-terminous with one paying authority, namely, the county for that area. There is no evidence to justify the fear expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend that the result will be that the police authority will be less generous to the police because it will have a more direct responsibility for justifying its expenditure to the council. Just as my right hon. and learned Friend argued the point from the question of expenditure, there are others who equally argue that it is less democratic to have a police authority that is a body corporate, because its expenditure is not controlled by an elected body. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, one-third of the membership of that authority will be magistrates and the other two-thirds will be representatives of the local authority. Therefore, their concern about the expenditure of the ratepayers' money, on the one hand, to be balanced against their responsibility and their interest in the police on the other, is likely to be very similar whether it be a combined authority or a single authority.
6.45 p.m.
If a police authority which is a committee of a council chose to carry a policy of economy to the point that it was affecting the efficiency of the policing of the area, the Home Secretary has responsibilities to ensure that policing is carried out effectively in the area and can take steps such as threatening the refusal of grant. If there were evidence of the type of abuse that my right hon. and learned Friend fears, I should be willing to look at the point. I say again that my overall belief, and that of the Home Office generally, is that those who serve on police authorities are proud of their force and have considerable interest in ensuring that their areas are properly policed.
I, in common with all other right hon. and hon. Members now present, have listened to the whole of the debate on the Amendment propounded by the hon. Member for Widnes. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) that it has been an interesting and fascinating debate. I have complete sympathy with those who are concerned both in the House and as individual members of


police forces who see the force to which they at present belong being broken up and merged with another force. I understand fully the feeling of those officers in existing forces who have a justifiable pride in their present forces and who do not wish them to be altered. This is an understandable and extremely commendable feeling.
It is a matter of pride to the police force that this concern has been expressed not only by those who are directly involved in any changes that occur but also by other members of the force, who although themselves remaining within the force see their force changing in size. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) pointed out, this is a feeling that goes so far that those in other forces are concerned that the esprit de corps of other forces may be affected by alterations.
I particularly appreciate the feelings of individual officers in that area of any force which is to be directly affected by the movement of a boundary. I accept that in the short term any change in boundaries is to a degree disruptive and unsettling, whether it is a new senior officer in charge of the area, whether it is different rules and conditions and variations between different forces, or whether it is the very breach of existing loyalties and pride in one's own force. It is worse still, or it may seem more unsettling, for those who went through a similar experience as recently as five or six years ago.
The House must get this matter into perspective. First, for much of the country there is no change in existing boundaries. The boundaries of the vast majority of existing forces, whether they be single county forces or an amalgamation of county forces, will remain the same or nearly the same. The policeman in Devon and Cornwall will still be a member of an identical constabulary of Devon and Cornwall after 1st April, 1974. The policemen in the Thames Valley police force will still be members of the same force. The same position will apply in many parts of the country.
However, where the change does come—and that is the point upon which the hon. Member for Widnes and other hon. Members have concentrated—is in those areas which will be new metropolitan

counties. If the Government's view is accepted by the House, new metropolitan police forces will be created. Parts of Lancashire and Cheshire, which the hon. Member for Widnes knows and which I know so well, will become part of Merseyside or Greater Manchester. Areas in the Midlands will become part of the West Midlands, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) said, parts of Durham and Northumberland will come into the new county of Tyneside.
I can only repeat that I appreciate the feelings of the many people who have recently been through a previous amalgamation. The point has been made forcibly that many of them moved from a borough force into a county force and that they did not want to do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) pointed out, many of them argued strongly against it at the time. They did not welcome the change but to their credit they have settled down in their new forces. They have shown that adaptability of which the police are entitled to be proud, and they now have a pride in the new forces.
There is another side to the picture. If it is agreed, as I believe it is by most hon. Members on both sides of the House, that the police service is to remain a locally based service with connections with local authorities, which I believe to be right and welcome, it is surely logically necessary that the boundaries of police areas should be co-terminous with those of the new counties. We are creating under the Bill police forces based on those counties. To do otherwise would be for the House to say, "Yes, reform local government. We go along with the geographical areas of the new counties and the districts, but for the police service we propose to retain ad hoc boundaries which have no relationship to the new boundaries."
If the House were to retain boundaries which have no relationship to the new boundaries of local government which we are drawing on the map, it must inevitably weaken, if not in the end destroy, the link which exists between the police service and local government, which both sides of the House and the majority of hon. Members support, as did the majority of the Royal Commission on the police.
I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. John Hannam). If the concept of a metropolitan county makes sense for local government purposes, then surely the idea of policing the conurbations and the metropolitan areas also makes sense in terms of police efficiency. If it be the right concept for other services it must surely be so for the police.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The only trouble with that is that the Government have refused to give us metropolitan county status, which we wanted.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, has an individualistic point of view on any matter. However, I was going to say that in this debate most people have been arguing that they did not want to go into the metropolitan areas. I should also remind the House that the tie-up between the new local government boundaries and the police authorities has the support of local government organisations, such as the County Council Association and the AMC.
For example, I take the area referred to by the Hon. Member for Widnes which is one which I know well, the Greater Manchester area. It cannot be right that we should have a greater Greater Manchester County Council, which is the right size and the right authority for other services, but then argue that large parts of it should be policed from areas not under Manchester but under the existing counties of Lancashire and Cheshire. Referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, it is easy to say that the existing police authorities do not wish to have a disturbance of the policing of their area. I confirm that that is what they have said to me. However on setting up the new Tyneside County Council, including Tynemouth, one would have to say to the new authority—

Mr. Frederick Willey: The hon. and learned Gentleman repeatedly refers to Tyneside.

Mr. Carlisle: I apologise. One would have to say to the new authority, "The Tyne and Wear County Council, unlike the other councils, shall not be a police authority. Although the police is to be

a top-tier function, we are excluding that function from your county council." Whatever the authorities may say, I suspect the authority of the new county council would be disturbed if it found that position had occurred.

Dame Irene Ward: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say on what grounds he made that statement? He may think so, but they would not tell him that.

Mr. Carlisle: What I said to the hon. Lady she asked me to say. The Northumberland and Durham authorities came to me and argued that there should be no Tyneside police authority and that the present situation should be preserved.

Mr. Willey: Tyne and Wear.

Mr. Carlisle: I am only making the point that when the Tyne and Wear authority exists, I am not sure that it would necessarily go along with the view that it alone of all county councils should not have the police function which belongs to other counties.

Dame Irene Ward: We are very independent.

Mr. Carlisle: If we reorganise local government for a generation, then surely the House must weigh the short-term disruption for some members of the police force against the long-term advantage of tying up the police boundaries with those of realistic local government boundaries. It is an advantage in the metropolitan areas that we should have separate police forces.
Regarding police efficiency, on the expert advice available to the Home Office, none of the new county boundaries is unworkable as police boundaries, there is no operational need for a procedure which splits off a part of a county, and no reason why the policing of any new counties should be split between two forces.
7.0 p.m.
Before turning to the Police Federation's approach to this matter, I should like to comment on the Midlands Area. The purpose of Amendment No. 254 is said to be to allow for the continuation of the status quo where that cannot be achieved by amalgamating part of the new county to the existing county. I


should point out to my hon. Friends the Members for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) and Cannock that the passing or otherwise of the Amendment would in no way achieve what they are asking for that area. It would meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath because he suggests that we expand it still further. If I understand the argument aright, my hon. Friends are arguing for the retention of the West Midlands force. That would require a wholly different type of Amendment to the Police Act as it would involve the power to divide counties rather than to provide for amalgamations.
I apologise if I have taken a long time, but it has been a lengthy debate.

Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. and learned Gentleman need not apologise. He is giving a fascinating reply as succinctly as he can. Before he sits down, will he deal with the Crowther Report and the regional police force point?

Mr. Carlisle: I was coming to that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), the then Home Secretary, took a clear decision, supported by the whole Government, that the police should remain a local authority service. It follows that we believe that those boundaries should be coterminous with the new county councils which are to be formed. The basis of our argument is that to do otherwise would weaken the relationship which now exists. My right hon. Friend made it clear that we could not accept the Federation's argument for a regional police force. While we can never bind future Governments on matters of policy, the decision that it should be a county service within the boundaries of either one or of amalgamated counties is a clear decision to which we propose to adhere.

Mr. Howell: That is a remarkable statement. The Minister is now saying that the Government will adhere to this proposal whatever the merits of the proposals in the Crowther Report.

Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend made it clear that he could not accept the argument for a regional police force and that we were retaining the police as a local authority function. We cannot

bind future Governments, but the decision has been taken on the basis of the Bill.
I turn now to what I call the human problems—the effect on individual policemen and women in areas which are due to be transferred and their concern over the disruption of their housing, schooling for their children, and matters of that nature.
The Home Office would welcome urgent talks with the Police Federation on this matter. The Home Secretary saw the Police Federation twice. The Federation understandably took the view that it was opposed at that stage to the principle of making boundaries coterminous, wished to advance that argument, and therefore wanted to await the final outcome of it before pursuing the effect on the individual officer.
The Government's approach to those talks would be that everything possible must and will be done to avoid and minimise hardship and inconvenience to individual officers. There are various aspects to this problem. There is, for instance, Regulation 23. There are different practices between different forces. There is the matter of the means by which men are to be allocated from their existing forces to the new forces. All these are matters for negotiation and discussion with the various representative organisations. I repeat, we want to discuss those matters urgently with the Police Federation. It is important that individual officers should know as soon as possible where they stand. Certainly we need to reach decisions in principle within a matter of months.
The fact that those discussions have not, for understandable reasons, taken place makes it impossible for me to make a final statement. However, it is clear that where an existing force is to be split, the wishes of individual officers must be ascertained when deciding which new force they will join. It will not be possible in every case to give everybody a free choice as of right, but in general, through discussion with the Police Federation, I expect that a high proportion of the officers in those areas affected will wish to stay in the areas in which they now serve. In the majority of cases, I do not expect any difficulty in meeting individual wishes.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Police Federation will consider carefully what the Minister of State has said. However, what the Federation is anxiously awaiting is the outcome of this debate. Its most urgent concern is that the Amendment should be carried.

Mr. Carlisle: I have conceded that the Police Federation has understandably taken that view.
I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) and to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) that Regulation 23, as it now stands, would protect the interests of those in the position with which they are concerned.
Another matter about which we want to talk to the Federation concerns giving to the county man security similar to that afforded the borough man by Regulation 23. If a man's force area is changed by reason of a local government boundary change or a local government reorganisation, he gains no protection.
We understand that the Police Federation would like the principle behind Regulation 23, of the man from the borough force not being moved from his borough without his consent, to be extended so that no member of any police force could, without his consent, be assigned to duties which made it necessary for him to move his home outside the area of his original force. This is an issue which we would like to discuss in detail. The Federation would certainly find the Home Office sympathetic to the personal problems of its members.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South must realise that the argument he advanced conflicts with the view expressed by other hon. Members that policemen now in the bigger forces do not want them to be reduced again because of the effect on promotional opportunities.
Any reorganisation of boundaries inevitably creates problems. However, there is a principle involved here, of retaining the police as a clearly definable local service with its boundaries coterminous with the new counties. In the belief that that is a necessary and desirable aim which will achieve efficiency as well, I invite the House to reject Amendment No. 254

Sir D. Renton: As the mover of Amendment No. 889, on which the debate was primarily based, may I briefly exercise my right of reply?
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has made out an impressive case for saying that the police areas in future should be co-terminous with the large new county areas. To that extent, he has argued in favour of democracy and can rightly claim to have done so. But I feel in this matter that we can carry democracy a little too far and I was disappointed by his reply with regard to financial control. I hope that between now and the passage of the Bill though another place he will reconsider the matter.
Every speech made on both Amendments has shown a proper concern for the interests of the police. I very much hope that we shall avoid a Division on either of the Amendments because I think that it would perhaps serve the interests of the local authorities and of the police and leave the position more open. I had not expected such a long debate, but had I done so I would still have put the Amendment down, as I am sure my right hon. Friends associated with me would have done. I want Clause 191, and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 1116, in page 129, line 2, at end insert:
'(2A) In subsection (3) of section 8 of the said Act of 1964 (audit of accounts of police authorities) for the words from "and the accounts" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "shall be treated for the purposes of Part VIII of the Local Government Act 1972 as though it were included among the accounts of the council of that country, and the accounts of every combined police authority shall be audited in such manner as may be prescribed by the amalgamation scheme, and for that purpose an amalgamation scheme may apply, in relation to the accounts of the combined police authority, all or any of the provisions of the said Part VIII relating to accounts and audit, subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed by the amalgamation scheme." '.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Amendment proposed: No. 254, in page 129, line 34, after 'counties', insert 'or parts thereof'.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 168.

Division No. 305. 
AYES
7.14 p.m.


Allen, Scholefield
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Padley, Walter


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Paget, R. T.


Atkinson, Norman
Hamling, William
Palmer, Arthur


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Barnes, Michael
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pavitt, Laurie


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Heffer, Eric S.
Pentland, Norman


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Prescott, John


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton
Huckfield, Leslie
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, William (Rugby)


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Probert, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hunter, Adam
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Janner, Greville
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Bradley, Tom
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roper, John


Buchan, Norman
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rose, Paul B.


Cant, R. B.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Carmichael, Neil
Kaufman, Gerald
Rowlands, Ted


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Kelley, Richard
Sandelson, Neville


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Kinnock, Neil
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Lamond, James
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cohen, Stanley
Lawson, George
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Coleman, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan
Small, William


Concannon, J. D.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spearing, Nigel


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Crawshaw, Richard
Mabon, Dr. J.Dickson
Stallard, A. W.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McBride, Neil
Steel, David


Davidson, Arthur
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Mackie, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Deakins, Eric
Mackintosh, John P.
Taverne, Dick


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Dormand, J. D.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marquand, David
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Dunnett, Jack
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Torney, Tom


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mayhew, Christopher
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, Tom
Molloy, William
Ward, Dame Irene


English, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Fred
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
White, James (Glasgow, Follok)


Ewing, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitehead, Phillip


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Murray, Ronald King
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Foot, Michael
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Forrester, John
O'Halloran, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Fraser, John (Norwood)
O'Malley, Brian
Woof, Robert


Gilbert, Dr. John
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally



Golding, John
Oram, Bert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Gourlay, Harry
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Goodhew, Victor


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gower, Raymond


Astor, John
Clegg, Walter
Green, Alan


Atkins, Humphrey
Cockeram, Eric
Gummer, Selwyn


Batsford, Brian
Cooper, A. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Benyon, W.
Critchley, Julian
Havers, Michael


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Crouch, David
Hawkins, Paul


Biggs-Davison, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Higgins, Terence L.


Blaker, Peter
Dean, Paul
Hiley, Joseph


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Boscawen, Robert
Dixon, Piers
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dykes, Hugh
Holt, Miss Mary


Braine, Bernard
Eden, Sir John
Hordern, Peter

Bray, Ronald
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hornby, Richard


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Emery, Peter
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bryan, Paul
Eyre, Reginald
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hunt, John


Buck, Antony
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fortescue, Tim
James, David


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Fox, Marcus
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Carlisle, Mark
Fry, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Chapman, Sydney
Gilmour, Ian(Norfolk,C)
Jopling, Michael







Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Murton, Oscar
Skeet, T. H. H.


Kershaw, Anthony
Neave, Airey
Speed, Keith


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Spence, John


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Normanton, Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kinsey, J. R.
Nott, John
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Kirk, Peter
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stokes, John


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Knox, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sutcliffe, John


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Peel, John
Tapsell, Peter


Le Marchant, Spencer
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Longden, Gilbert
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Luce, R. N.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Tebbit, Norman


McMaster, Stanley
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Tilney, John


Maddan, Martin
Redmond, Robert
Trew, Peter


Madel, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Turton, Rt. Kn. Sir Robin


Mather, Carol
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mills, Peter (Torrington.)
Ridsdale, Julian
Waddington, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Walters, Dennis


Moate, Roger
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Weatherill, Bernard


Molyneaux, James
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Money, Ernle
Scott, Nicholas
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sharples, Sir Richard



Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Morrison, Charles
Sinclair, Sir George
Mr. Hamish Gray and Mr. John Stradling Thomas.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 192

FIRE SERVICES

Amendment made:

No. 1117, in page 131, line 10, at end insert:
'(4) In subsection (5) of section 8 of the Fire Services Act 1947 (audit of accounts of combined fire authorities) for the words from "subject to audit" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "audited in such manner as may be prescribed by the combination scheme, and for that purpose a combination scheme may apply, in relation to the accounts of the fire authority constituted by it, all or any of the provisions of Part VIII of the Local Government Act 1972 relating to accounts and audit, subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed by the scheme." '.—[Mr. Speed.]

Clause 196

PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN PASSENGER TRANSPORT AREAS

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I beg to move Amendment No. 780, in page 135, line 7, leave out 'and' and insert:
(b) to make further provision with respect to the control of a Passenger Transport Executive by the Passenger Transport Authority; and

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this Amendment we are to take the following Government Amendments: Nos. 781, 782, 783, 784, and 785.

Mr. Speed: There was considerable criticism from both sides of the Standing Committee that the Bill as drafted did not go far enough to ensure full democratic control over passenger transport executives. My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) undertook to introduce further Amendments to place that control beyond doubt. Those Amendments are Nos. 781 and 782 which relate to Schedule 24(4). As drafted the paragraph inserts into Part II of the Transport Act, 1968 a new Section based on analogous provisions in the Transport (London)Act, 1969 which provides for increased and more precisely defined controls over the activities of passenger transport executives. Among these is the power for the passenger transport authorities to give general directions to the passenger transport executives on matters appearing to the authorities to affect the exercise of their duty to provide a properly integrated and efficient system of public passenger transport to meet the needs of the area.
These arrangements were subject to two limitations. First, the term "general direction" has come to have a specific and rather restrictive interpretation in its application to the nationalised


industries. Amendment No. 781 by deleting the qualification "general" removes this analogy and the implied restrictive interpretation. The second apparent limitation was in describing the subject of directions by the authority on matters related to its general duty under Section 9(3) of the 1968 Act. The purpose of the Amendment is to remove this apparent limitation and to make it clear that the directions may refer to matters appearing to the authority to affect the executive's general duty as well as its own. It is achieved by Amendment 782 inserting a reference to the executive's duty into Section 9(3) of the 1968 Act.
Amendments Nos. 783, 784 and 785 are consequential upon the two main Amendments. It is also necessary to amend Clause 196 since the amended paragraph of Schedule 24 will go beyond the assimilation of Part II of the 1969 Act. Amendment No. 780 covers this by inserting a reference to the control of the passenger transport executives by the passenger transport authorities. There is a difficulty in all these matters, as was discussed in the Committee, in that the passenger transport executives are responsible for the day to day administration of extremely large commercial organisations. In certain parts of the country they will become even larger. The West Midlands PTA is a good example because the Coventry Corporation transport will be assimilated into the PTA.
Nevertheless, there has been criticisms particularly from the West Midlands and elsewhere that the existing provisions covered by the 1968 Act were not anything like tight enough to ensure the democratic control that both sides of the Committee wanted. It cannot be argued that this is exactly like a normal subcommittee or committee of a local authority and I cannot give that undertaking as such. I can give an analogy of the sort of situation which might exist in a seaside resort where the entertainments committee and the entertainments manager run a commercial operation. The manager would not necessarily expect to have detailed interference in the day-to-day commercial activities but he would be answerable to the authority as a whole within clearly laid down guidelines of policy and there would be control by the authority over the entertainments manager. That is the sort of

analogy we have had in mind in drawing up the Amendments. Provisions are now much tighter and will meet many of the complaints which were quite rightly raised by both sides about democratic control over the passenger transport executives.

Mr. Denis Howell: I wish to place on record our appreciation to the Government for seeking to meet the wishes of the Committee on this matter. It is a matter of first principle. It was stated as such by hon. Members on both sides who believed that a local authority service should be completely controlled by the members of the authority. I shall not weary the House by going over the cases which caused us to raise the matter.
I had intended to ask the Under-Secretary for a categorical assurance that the Amendments now mean that the passenger transport authority has the same relationship to its executive as is the case with every other local authority service. We have had an almost 99 per cent. assurance on that point and it would be churlish to press it further, so I shall not do so. The Under-Secretary was on difficult ground when he drew an analogy with the entertainments committee. I was chairman of an entertainments committee in the local authority and I know that more time is spent on deciding what symphony shall be played at some classical concert or which variety artist shall be booked for some festival of entertainment than almost anything else in the history of the corporation.
I thank the Under-Secretary and his colleagues, and especially the Minister for Local Government and Development, for meeting the Committee so generously on this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 24

AMENDMENTS OF TRANSPORT ACT 1968, PART II

Amendments made: No. 781, in page 310, line 26, leave out 'general'.

No. 782, in page 310, line 31, leave out 'of their duty' and insert:
'or the Executive of their respective duties'.

No. 783, in page 311, line 34, leave out second 'areas' and insert 'councils'.

No. 784, in page 311, line 45, leave out from 'section' to end of line 46 and insert:
for the words "constituent areas" there shall be substituted the words "districts within the designated area" '.

No.1118, in page 312, line 37, leave out from the beginning to 'and' in line 38 and insert:
councils referred to in paragraph (b) above" '.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 197

PUBLIC TRANSPORT OUTSIDE PASSENGER TRANSPORT AREAS

Amendments made: No. 1119, in page 136, line 38, after 'of', insert 'each of the'.

No. 1120, in page 137, line 2, leave out persons and Board, and insert:
Railways Board and each of the other persons'.—[Mr. Speed.]

No. 785, in page 137, line 14, leave out paragraph (b) of that subsection' and insert 'subsection (1)(b) above'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 198

LICENSING: LICENSED PREMISES, CINEMAS, THEATRES AND REFRESHMENT HOUSES

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Brynmor John: I beg to move Amendment No. 1193, in page 138, line 1, leave out 'districts' and insert 'counties'.
I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following Amendments: 
No. 1194, in page 138, line 3, leave out 'district' and insert 'county', and No. 1195, in page 138, line 5, leave out 'district' and insert 'county'.
These three Amendments refer to subsection (1) of this Clause. The effect is to insert in each case, where "district" is mentioned, the word "county". The Clause deals with the question of local opinion polls in Wales. The question of Sunday opening or closing of licensed houses is to be determined under the Licensing Act by polls which at the moment are conducted on a county basis,

together with the four county boroughs. There are, therefore, 17 such polls at the moment, and polls are held every seven years.
The effect of the Bill at the moment is to substitute for counties the districts of Wales. By this Bill the counties of Wales are reduced to eight in number and there are 37 districts created. As I have said, the effect will be to allow polls to take place in each of the 37 districts to determine whether a district is or is not to open its licensed houses on a Sunday.
I wish to make three short points. First, if we are to have a system of local options, as clearly we are, it should produce a system which is as easy as possible for everyone to understand, and in particular in a country like Wales, which is so heavily dependent upon tourists, it should be understandable not only by the inhabitants of Wales but by visitors.
The second point is that it should be as free of absurdity as possible, and free of the possibility of slipping over borders from a dry area into a wet area on a Sunday, as was done frequently in the case of the English border some years ago.
Thirdly, these polls should be held with a minimum of fuss and public expense.
My submission is that the placing of polls upon a district level will infringe against each of these three conditions. First, it will give 37 polls which will have a patchwork quilt of authorities, some keeping dry and others perhaps wet, and the effect upon the puzzled tourist can be imagined.
Secondly, it is not even a static position once it has been determined. Every seven years there will be further polls and there are possibilities of wet areas going dry and dry areas going wet. The consequent confusion will be marvellous to behold—to everyone except those who care for the image of Wales. We do not want to make it some sort of Ruritanian musical comedy country. It certainly infringes against the question of evasion of the Act by crossing boundaries, because it would be all too easy to cross from one district into another. Also, if conducted on a district basis, even though it be conducted under the auspices of the new counties, it will create disproportionate expense.
If the eight counties were to be charged with the duty of carrying out these polls, we would have uniformity of licensing law over wide areas of the country, a sensible arrangement which everyone will readily understand, and it would be done at a minimum of public expense.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) for putting the argument for the Amendments so shortly and clearly. I remember in Committee his right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) raising Amendments which were roughly similar, and I promised to write to him afterwards, which I did. We again looked at this matter very carefully.
I am the first to admit that this is a matter of no unanimity. For instance, the Association of Municipal Corporations, say the opinions in their Welsh Committee are divided, though there was a majority of two-thirds to one-third in favour of polls being conducted on the basis of the new counties, which the hon. Gentleman wants. The County Councils Association and the Welsh Counties Committee are in favour of polls being held on a county basis, too. But the alliance between the UDCA, the RDCA and the temperance organisations favour the provisions within the Bill. Therefore, we in Parliament have to decide in the light of this very contradictory advice.
The main reason for the present provision is to enable choice to be exercised locally. I remember that when the present Lord Butler was Home Secretary I was one of those who advised him on the question of local option in Wales. It was thought then that the emphasis must be on "local". The number of new counties will be less than half the present number of counties and county boroughs, whereas there will be 37 new districts. But one does not get a poll if it is not requisitioned by 500 persons, and in the Newport County Borough last time there was not such a poll.
It is desirable to adhere to the principles of the 1964 Act that polls should be held on the basis of the new districts. It may be suggested that this will produce a patchwork of wet and dry districts. I think this possibility is more theoretical than real. If one considers the new dis-

tricts and relates them to the results of the polls in 1968, it is clear that the areas likely to remain dry are mainly the new districts based on the present counties.
Having discussed this in Committee, and having looked at it again very carefully, I have to say that the view of my right hon. and learned Friend and of myself is that this Amendment cannot be accepted.

Mr. John: I must confess to being disappointed by that answer. It seems to me that although it needs a requisition of 500 voters, that will certainly occur almost everywhere in Wales, and therefore we are likely to be faced with the prospect of having 35 or 36 polls every seven years. However, as the Bill will be considered in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 662.

Mr. Roger Moate: Before dealing with this Amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I seek your guidance on Amendment No. 1168, in Schedule 30, page 339, column 3, leave out lines 55 to 59 and insert 'Sections 5 and 6'.
That Amendment has not been selected, but it is consequential on Amendment No. 662 and I wondered whether we could take them both together?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Moate: I beg to move Amendment No. 662, in page 138, line 33, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 34 and insert 'sections 5 and 6'.
This is a simple point and it is un-controversial, and I hope, therefore, that it will prove acceptable.
Under the Bill the power to issue cinematograph licences is transferred from the county councils to the new district councils. They in turn have the power to delegate this function to the justices sitting in petty sessions. The effect of the Amendment is to remove that latter power of delegation.
It is the view of those experienced in these matters that the powers should be administered by the local authority itself,


the authority which has the experience and the technical officers to judge these matters. It is felt that they are the bodies best suited to administer the powers, rather than have it done in court. Where objections to licences arise, it is found that magistrates will often, quite understandably, decline to become involved in the inevitable technicalities, and in cases of difficulty they may tend to apply strict rules of evidence, which is not necessarily the best way of tackling a matter which is essentially one of practical and technical significance.
It is a minor point, but I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for the way in which he has presented the Amendment. As he says, the effect is to bring to an end the existing power of cinema licensing authorities to delegate their functions to the justices. The original reason for having a system of licensing was to provide power to the appropriate authority to ensure that adequate safety precautions were taken, but the power to issue a licence includes a wide power to attach conditions to it, and, as a result, the licensing authority is enabled to exercise control over the content of films shown in the public commercial cinema in the area. This is now the basis of the existing system of film censorship in this country.
The Government agree with my hon. Friend that it is anomalous that censorship powers should in some cases be delegated to justices instead of being retained in the hands of the elected representatives of the community. It is essentially a policy matter. It is felt that it is right that the elected council members should be regarded as the body capable of reflecting the view—from time to time the changing view—of the people in a local community.
We have discussed the matter in consultation with the County Councils Association, the Magistrates Association and Justices Clerks Society. They all support the case which my hon. Friend has so succinctly and eloquently argued, and I have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 200

PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS (ENGLAND)

Mr. Peter Trew,: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to give notice in connection with Amendment No. 1177. In the event of this Amendment not being accepted by the Government, it will be my wish to ask for a separate vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall see that Mr. Speaker is informed.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I beg to move Amendment No. 663, in page 140, leave out line 40, and insert:
(a) the council of a district;.
Clause 200 entrusts library powers in England to non-metropolitan county councils but denies them to non-metropolitan district councils, and the purpose of the Amendment is to transfer primary responsibility for library functions to all district councils.
Like many hon. Members, I suppose, I have received a number of letters opposing this Amendment. I was particularly charmed by those which began, "Dear Member", and then urged me strenuously to resist "Mr. Biggs-Davison's Amendment". I have weighed all the arguments put to me against the Amendment. I fully understand the position of the Essex County Council, but I do not accept it.
Historically, it was the boroughs—or a number of them—which nurtured the first free library service. I represent no borough, but my constituents in the Chigwell urban district are proud of their libraries, for which the urban district council assumed responsibility not long ago, and only yesterday the council was discussing the building of a new library.
In paragraph 22 of their White Paper of February, 1971, the Government expressed the view that the new districts should enjoy
responsibilities and powers sufficient to make service with them a reality for both members and officers".
In paragraph 8, it is stressed that,
…a genuine local democracy implies that decisions should be taken—and should be seen to be taken—as locally as possible.


Libraries are essentially a local function, yet under Clause 200 they would no longer be administered by the authorities closest to the people.
7.45 p.m.
If the Clause is not amended, quite considerable towns and cities outside the metropolitan areas will lose library functions to the county council although under the reorganisation most district councils—this certainly applies to Chigwell—will possess sufficient size and resources to discharge library functions. Where there are scattered populations or sparsely populated areas, district councils no less than county councils may, as the present district councils do, run mobile libraries.
There is no intention by the Amendment to compel any district to become a library authority. If, however, the Amendment were accepted, Clause 101 would enable a district council which is unwilling or unable to administer its own library service to make agency arrangements with the county council or, indeed, with an adjoining district council.
I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee, but, having studied the proceedings, I observe that the Government rely very much on Clause 101 to enable district councils to take on functions given over to county councils. My hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace, then earthbound, in supporting the allocation of library services to county councils, praised Clause 101, saying that it would be much used, and adding:
It would be wrong for me not continually to remind people that it is there, because we see this flexible service in local government in the division of functions. I believe without the slightest doubt that it will certainly be used in this and a number of other cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 7th March. 1972; c. 2448.]
It seems to me that "flexible service" is a key phrase. Since satisfactory arrangements can be made under the Bill to cover exceptional cases, I think it proper that Clause 200 should be amended as I propose. After all, under the reorganisation, we shall be dealing with substantially larger districts. I believe that the population of most of the new non-metropolitan district may exceed 75,000.
There is the argument that responsibility for libraries should rest with the authorities which are education authori-

ties. I do not think that that argument is all that strong. In fact, the practical links between the library service and the education service are tenuous. Local authorities, like the Chigwell Urban District Council, which are not education authorities operate an efficient library service, and they work it in with other cultural activities such as exhibitions, readings, recitals, drama—activities best fostered by local pride and local people, not by distant county hall.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) is not in his place, but I under stand—

Mr. Terry Davis: He is ill.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Yes, indeed, and we are sorry about that. I make no point whatever about his absence. I just wish to say something in praise of his constituency and his own authority. It is not an education authority, but I understand that it has a seven-storey building comprising a lending library, a music and record room, a reference room, a local
history museum, a 327-seat theatre, a music room and a photographic room.
On the question of links between education and libraries, the Roberts Committee had this to say:
In a broad sense, libraries are of course, part of the educational system of the country and there are very close connections between the work of public libraries and the formal education service. None the less, we think that the further development of the public library service may, in many areas, be more effectively carried out with a library committee staking its claim for financial resources as an independent service, and with a chief librarian having direct access to such a committee, than if the service remains as small part of a far greater county education service.
It has been suggested that only the top-tier authorities could make effective use of computers and other technical aids, but in the normal process of lending books to the public, which is what libraries are for, the computer has limited application. What our constituents are interested in is having books to read, books to borrow. Computers come into play in the more specialised fields, but in any case one does not have to own a computer to use a computer. Many borough library authorities do not have computers and


already resort to computerised information services under joint arrangements, and why not?
In the Standing Committee, reference was made to the advantages to be derived from giving libraries powers in terms of
specialisation, diversification, training, recruitment and deployment of staff, inter-lending, management aids and techniques".
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) also has an Amendment on this subject, because I very much like what he had to say about that. He said:
Those are all words which would send a management consultant into transports of delight. But nowhere is there any mention of the people who will read the books or the councillors who will represent them.
In reply to the debate in Standing Committee, the Minister for Aerospace showed himself
…sensitive to the view put forward by many Members that there is need to represent the views of the people who use the library services, who take the books out, and who want to feel that there is a local relationship, a local pride and a local sense of ownership. This point represents the dilemma between the technological argument and the democratic argument which has run through the entire Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 7th March, 1972; c. 2430–48.]
The Minister spoke of the Welsh proposals in Clause 201 providing that during a specified period an application may be made to the Secretary of State for an order whereby the district council is constituted the libary authority in place of the county council. All I would say is that English district councils should not be worse off than district councils in the Principality of Wales.
Finally, I suggest that we should beware the cult of centralisation and free ourselves from the illusion that economy and efficiency necessarily come from the larger unit. Let us not strip the new districts of functions in which citizens and councillors can take pride. I do not concede that with modern inter-lending facilities the modern seeker after enlightenment and entertainment would be denied books, and I commend the Amendment to the Government in the hope that they will show themselves responsive.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I remind the House again, as has the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), of paragraph 22 of the White Paper:

The Government intend these councils to be genuine authorities, existing in their own right, and with responsibilities and powers sufficient to make service with them a reality for both members and officers.
This aspiration cannot be achieved if everything is given lock, stock and barrel to the county. It can be achieved only if the district councils have adequate responsibilities for certain functions which are of local concern, and the library service is obviously one of these.
Why should responsibility for public libraries rest with county councils to the exclusion of the district councils? I appreciate the difficulty in a sparsely populated area with low resources which has never enjoyed a locally administered library service, but the county service could operate in such an area with the already highly developed services of the district still preserved as an entity, and neither need operate to the detriment of the other.
I query the Government's assertion in paragraph 18 of the White Paper that responsibility for libraries should rest with education authorities. Education authorities provide library services for schools and colleges, but a general public library service goes further than that. In the Report of the Wheatley Commission for Scotland, libraries were viewed as providing not only education facilities but civic amenities, serving local needs and reflecting local characteristics. The town library often becomes a cultural centre, with facilities for exhibitions, meetings, readings and even recitals and dramatic presentations. In some towns it will be part of a complex of buildings housing a museum, an art gallery and perhaps a theatre or a concert hall. Intense local pride is fostered in this way, pride which would probably disappear if a distant county hall administered the service.
Where such cultural centres have been developed, would it not be unwise in the extreme to dismantle what is essentially a local service forming an integral part of the community's cultural life? If it is found—and this happens to be the case—that local authorities which are at present without education functions operate an efficient library service, why change something that has been found to be good? We English, unfortunately, seem adept at this. We have something that is really good and we have to change


it. We might be called compulsive changelings!
I remind the Government that most of the new district councils will be of sufficient size and will have adequate resources to maintain an efficient library service on their own. The Government have accepted the Wheatley Commission's view that responsibility for libraries should rest with the district councils in Scotland. Are we in England and Wales so inferior to the Scots? I spoke of England and Wales, but even Wales is treated better than poor old England. The proposals for the allocation of functions as between county councils and district councils in Wales are much more favourable to district councils in Wales than those in England. Why? I ask the Minister to answer that question. Why is that so?
According to Clause 200, the library authority will be the county council. According to Clause 201, the district council in Wales may apply to, and be constituted a library authority by the Secretary of State if he considers that that is expedient having regard to
"(a) the capacity of the council to provide an efficient library service for their district; and
(b) the effect which the order would have on the library service which is to be provided by the council of the new county comprising that district."
My constituency, Watford, can certainly show capacity and its being the library authority would presumably have no adverse effect whatever on the county services. Why, therefore, should not Watford apply to the Secretary of State to be constituted a library authority? The answer is that the Bill does not give the same privileges to district councils in England as to those in Wales, and again I ask the Minister, why not?
In my constituency—Watford—the borough council is at present the library authority. It has maintained a library service in its own right for many years. This library service compares most favourably with that provided by the county council and the rest of Hertfordshire. Our per capita book expenditure is far ahead of the other councils and Watford also has a gramophone record library, which is a service not provided by the county council. Our reference and local history

services are very good, and probably better than those provided in the other Hertfordshire areas where the county council runs the service, and the exhibition and meeting facilities provided are excellent. Yet, despite all this, the total cost per 1,000 inhabitants in Watford is lower than it is in the rest of the county.
Therefore, again I urge the Minister, "Do not change something which has been found to be good. At best, you can equalise your position; at worst, you will worsen it. Leave the primary responsibility on district councils and give reserve powers to the county so that if the district is not working properly or if it is in an area with very low resources which has never enjoyed a locally administered library service, the county can step in." I ask the Minister to allow places such as Watford to continue to be proud of their record and not to spoil it all.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will resist the Amendment. As I have said before, we stand in danger of whittling the Bill away too far. I realise that people who have the interests of the new districts at heart want to ensure that their districts have a reasonable amount to do. Nevertheless, from time to time I detect arguments which suggest that the true reason for allowing powers to the districts is simply to give them enough to do rather than arguments based on the provision of excellent services to the public, which is what the exercise should be about.
The arguments for treating the library service at the county level are very strong. The first is that the large library service can offer a size and variety of book stock which cannot normally be matched by a smaller service. Many of the books can be found in any service, but the more expensive and scarcer books can be much more efficiently and economically provided by the large service than by the small service. In addition, the management resources and the organisation of a modern library system require specialists whom we cannot reasonably expect to find in the smaller districts. A good library service has specialists in a wide variety of topics, and the big authority can provide something very valuable.
Although I do not press the point too strongly, there are advantages in all the boroughs throughout a county having the same level of service. This is one area where the interdependence between town and country, which has always been regarded as one of the points of local government reform, has some meaning. It is nonsense that people who live in a village and have to go to the town to work find that there are different library services in the two areas, when there could be a single effective library service covering both.
The point about the interdependence with the education authority, not fully refuted by the Government is valid. Perhaps there is not as close a link between the library services and the education services as there should be. There should be much more activity in this area. The bringing of the expertise and advice of libraries and the display of books and the description of the functions of the library into the school system is to be encouraged and it is more likely to be achieved through my right hon. Friend's proposals than through the Amendment.
There is an argument in terms of career prospects. By and large, the larger services will provide greater opportunities and attractions for librarians. By and large, it is easier to amalgamate than to fragment. What we are talking about will undoubtedly mean amalgamation in many cases but that is a process which can come about more naturally and effectively by what is proposed by the Government than by the process proposed in the Amendment.
I do not dispute that many county boroughs and some non-county boroughs can provide a very good library service. Watford may have a very good library service; I do not know. But if Watford has a better library service than the rest of Hertfordshire, why should it object to the level of the service being raised in the rest of the county? The borough is being much too defensive. It is assumed that this is a grand take-over by the counties and that the districts will inevitably become the poor relations. There is absolutely no reason why that should be so. The trouble is that hon. Members persist in thinking that, because the new areas are called

counties, the county element will pre-dominate at the expense of the county borough element. There is no reason why it should be so. If Watford has better librarians and facilities, it will act as a pacemaker for the rest of Hertfordshire, which is a very good thing. I beseech hon. Members not to lapse into a tired defensiveness—

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Why should not Watford be a pacemaker if the responsibility for the library service rests with the district authorities?

Mr. Raison: A county is much more likely to be influenced by Watford's standards if Watford is part of the set-up than if it persists as a separate authority. It is said that there should be a defensive spirit among hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck).
This is one of the areas in which scale confers advantages. I am not a great advocate of scale for all purposes; in many instances it does not achieve anything. But in this case there are positive advantages of scale which it would be foolish to ignore.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not scale but money which gives advantages? In the urban areas, county boroughs have been far more ready to give cash for the libraries and museums than have the authorities in the rural areas.

Mr. Raison: The figures do not bear that out. The county boroughs as a whole do not give more money than the counties. Therefore, my hon. Friend's argument does not hold water.
The other side of the coin of local government reform is the question of how we balance efficiency, which may tend to lead to scale, with local involvement. Therefore, the other question we must face is whether having the library service run by county councillors as opposed to district councillors means that inadequate control will be exercised by the elected representatives. I do not believe that the library service cries out for very close links with councillors. This is claimed to be a merit of the districts. I have some doubt about whether that is so. But, assuming that the district


councillor will be more aware of the situation than the county councillor, that is not important in respect of the library service. It is important in, for example, housing where we have housing allocations. It may be important in planning matters where knowledge of the locality as obviously important.
But, with the library service, the job of the committee is to lay down policy. We do not expect the committees to choose books; we have professional librarians for that purpose. If the committees selected the books, it would perhaps be another matter. But that is not operate. There is no advantage in operat-the way in which a library service should ing at the second-tier. I am told that in Buckinghamshire the system of area library committees was dropped a few years ago, and I gather that nobody has complained about it.
The arguments are strongly in favour of the case embodied in the Bill. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister not to be faint hearted or deterred by the serried ranks of the representatives of the district, but to stick to his position.

Mr. David Stoddart: I support the Amendment. Like most other hon. Members I have been lobbied by the county councils and the county librarians, but that lobbying has left me completely cold because I think their case is not a good one. In talking about the library service we must bear in mind that "big" is not necessarily "better", and "too big" can often be "very much worse". In a personal service, which this is, there is an optimum size, and once one gets above that size the personal element begins to go by the board. The new district councils which we hope will operate the library service will in many cases be bigger than the existing district councils and boroughs which are at present running a very efficient library service.
There is something about the library service that people go for. Anyone who has been associated with a local authority knows that the libraries committee is a favourite committee because people, are interested in the services provided by it. It is a service that affects people and it should be administered as closely to the people as possible. The unit closest to the people is the district council, and

that is another reason why the district council should have responsibility for the library service.
It has been argued that the education authority should also be the library authority—that books and education are inextricably linked. So they are, but the library service has entertainment as well as educational value and that is why it is preferable that it should be right away from the education service, while still being able to provide a service to the education authority. Although I am much in favour of improved education and have served on an education committee for many years, I fear we shall reach the stage when the educationists will want to set up a conglomerate empire. If we are not careful, the educationists will be making a case for taking over every activity of the local authority and we shall need no other committee than the education committee. It is not necessarily right for the library service to be controlled by the education authority.
The provision in the Bill that the county councils should take over the library service is insulting to many of our boroughs and county boroughs which have been responsible for building up the library service. It is not the counties which have been responsible for building it up, but in the main the county boroughs and boroughs. Having built up this first-class service, they are now told that they are no longer capable of running it.
I have been associated with two boroughs with first-class library services. For many years Reading has operated a highly developed service. It was years before the Berkshire county councillors were convinced that ordinary working folk should even be taught to read, let alone provided with library facilities for their enjoyment and further education. I admit that Reading is a county borough and is a rich town with many resources. It is also an education authority, but the library service has operated quite separately, very efficiently, giving a first-class service to all the citizens and schools. There has been no pressure from the education authority to take over the library service.
8.15 p.m.
The councillors in Swindon, and the ordinary people, are resentful that the library service is to be taken away from Swindon. Although it is a comparatively


new town, Swindon has a history of railway greatness. It will not have that for much longer under this Government, unfortunately, and we shall have to take the railway engine from the coat of arms of the borough when the British Rail workshops, about which the Secretary of State seems to care nothing, are closed down.
To get back to the library service, Swindon Borough Council has built up a library service and a cultural service second to none in the country. I have done some research and have been able to make comparisons between what is provided by Swindon and what is provided by Wiltshire County Council. Swindon has always adopted a broad view, not merely confining itself to books but taking in entertainment and cultural activities for the people.
The Swindon Arts Centre was probably the first in the country to be wholly financed by a local authority. It provides a home, either free or at very cheap rates, for a large number of groups working on broadly cultural lines. Those groups include 18 public library ancillary societies, for example, ballet club, film unit, music club, literary and philosophical societies and various amateur dramatic groups, townswomen's guilds, artists' societies and many other organisations of a similar nature. Swindon is proud to have been able to provide these facilities, and the people are proud to have them. Administered by the same committee and officer structure and linked in the public mind with these facilities are the three museums and the art gallery in the town. On the straight book issue side, Swindon's membership of 40 per cent. of the population and book issues of 17 per head of the population per annum are well above the national average.
Statistical comparisons are not always reliable, but these are the facts relating to Swindon and Wiltshire. The volumes per head of the population issued by Swindon are 2·1, by Wiltshire, 1·59. The issues per head of population in Swindon are 17, and in Wiltshire 11. The expenditure per 1,000 of population is for Swindon £1,149 and for Wiltshire £1,014. Expenditure is the key. Expenditure in Swindon, over a smaller and more compact area, is much higher than it is in Wiltshire over a much wider area.

Mr. Martin Maddan: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat those two figures in terms of pounds per head of population?

Mr. Stoddart: Expenditure per thousand of population in Swindon was £1,149 and in Wiltshire £1,014. It does not appear to be very much higher, but I was trying to explain that Swindon with a compact area to administer spends £1,149 and one would have thought that the county, with a much wider area to administer, would be spending a lot more rather than less. It seems that we must differ on this matter, but it appears to me as a matter of logic that this must be so.

Dr. Stuttaford: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that those figures are reflected throughout the country, and that per head of population more money is spent by the urban dweller on libraries than by the rural dweller, despite the fact that in urban areas there are no transport costs? Would he not agree that we must consider the national figure as well as the local figure.

Mr. Stoddart: Yes, I accept that. Indeed it confirms what I am saying about Swindon. What is happening in Swindon is being repeated throughout the country and helps the case for this Amendment.
I emphasise that Swindon Borough Council in terms of library opening hours and service is far superior in every respect to the service given by the county council. It is a nonsense to suppose that the library service in future will be better administered and that a superior service given to people of Swindon if it is taken over by the Wiltshire County Council.
It may be that Swindon is doing very well because of its strong Welsh associations and its cultural heritage, but nevertheless it is a very good town which has done a very good job in many respects. This applies particularly to its library services and cultural amenities. I assure the Secretary of State that if this service is taken out of the hands of the Swindon people, they will be very resentful indeed and will tell him so in no uncertain terms.

Mr. Trew: I agree with a great deal of the speech made by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart). He put


the human side of the argument very well indeed, as distinct from the management consultant side of the argument which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison).
I wish to speak principally about Amendment No. 1177, and if the Amendment is not accepted by the Government I shall be asking for a separate vote upon it. The Amendment is the same as that on which I spoke in Committee. It will have the effect of giving the Secretary of State the same power in relation to English libraries as Clause 201 gives him in relation to Welsh libraries, namely the power to designate as library authorities certain district councils, subject to certain conditions.
Before I speak specifically about Amendment No. 1177, I should like to say something about the general argument involving counties and districts. Those who argue that the counties should have library powers base themselves on the alleged administrative advantages and on the close link which, it is said, exists between the library service and education. The education argument, although plausible, is specious. Some three-quarters of all books issued by public libraries are fiction. Of the non-fiction books a large proportion are light biography which are read for entertainment rather than enlightenment In other words, the library service is very much more a leisure service than an education service.
That argument is reinforced by the extent to which libraries, particularly in urban areas, are integrated into the cultural life of the community and often form the focal point of that cultural life. Reading likes and dislikes vary from area to area and good local library reflects very much the personality of the district which it serves.
On the grounds of the leisure argument, the case for having administration of the library service at district level is much stronger than the argument for having it at county level. However, it is a fact that not all districts want to be library authorities, and that strengthens the county argument. But there is no justification for the rigid provisions of Clause 200 as drafted since it makes all the counties library authorities and none of the districts a library authority. The provision in the Welsh Clause 201, which gives the Secretary of State power to

designate certain district councils as library authorities, is both sensible and flexible. I listened carefully to the arguments in Committee and have read carefully through all the briefs issued by the counties, and I have yet to see a convincing reason why a provision that is thought to be appropriate for Wales is inappropriate for England.
I do not want to rehearse what was said in Committee, but everybody who served on it, and indeed anybody who reads the proceedings, will agree that, had this Amendment been put to the vote in the Standing Committee it would have been approved by an overwhelming majority. However, I did not press it because at the end of the discussion the Government gave certain undertakings. They were given by my hon. Friend who is now the Minister for Aerospace, and are to be found in columns 2448–89 in the Committee proceedings on 7th March. 1972.
The expectation aroused in Members of the Committee by those undertakings was that the Government would in due course table on Report an Amendment similar to Amendment No. 1177. Admittedly, my hon. Friend made the qualification that consideration would have to be given to the very different conditions in England. But nobody has yet explained what these very different conditions are, and I do not think anybody takes that argument very seriously.
If anybody wonders why, if the Government were persuaded by this argument, they did not accept the Amendment, there is a sensible and reasonable answer. It is that the Minister responsible for the library service is my noble friend the Paymaster-General. Anybody who has corresponded with him on this subject will know that he is a passionate believer in having control of the libraries at county level. I respect his view. In Committee it appeared to be a simple matter of allowing my hon. Friend to consult with the Paymaster-General before the Government were able to make a major concession. There was no doubt in my mind what the Government intended to do. Indeed, had I had any doubt I would have tabled Amendment No. 1177 three months ago. But I did nothing about tabling it because I was certain that the Government would do


so. In fact, I tabled it about a week ago, at the last possible moment.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Maddan: My hon. Friend has referred to the proceedings in Committee and to what the then Under-Secretary of State is reported as having said in councils 2448 and 2449. What is the passage which made my hon. Friend feel as he does?

Mr. Trew: If my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) reads those two columns of the speech, probably he will understand that the impression left in the minds of those hon. Members who served on the Committee was that, with reasonable qualifications, the Government would be tabling an Amendment along these lines on Report. The Government have tabled no Amendment. Therefore one wonders in what way they intend to honour this undertaking. In the light of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the course of our debate on Clause 101, one can only infer that it is the Government view that the agency provisions in that Clause provide a way of giving district councils the degree of control that they wish to have.
In Committee, I argued strongly for departmental guide lines on the grant of agency powers, especially for functions relating to municipal engineering. For that reason, I welcomed what my right hon. Friend said when we debated Clause 101. In granting the appeal procedure up to 1st April, 1974, my right hon. Friend has gone even further than I asked. In respect of most functions that is an extremely useful concession on his part. However, in Committee I made it clear that I did not think that the grant of agency powers was adequate for the library function—

Mr. Ted Lead bitter: A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) asked the hon. Gentleman which words in the Minister's speech in Committee he had in mind. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that in c. 2448 of the Committee proceedings, the Minister referred to the speech of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) and said:
I think that there is a case for considering the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 7th March, 1972; c. 2448.]

Surely that answers the hon. Member for Hove.

Mr. Trew: That is perfectly true. As I was saying, I argued strongly in Committee that the agency provisions were not appropriate for the library function. In this country, there are a number of outstanding local libraries which have been built up over the years by the enthusiasm and initiative of local people. They have been very much integrated into the life of the community. Many of them have valuable stocks of books accumulated over the years, in some cases by bequests left specifically to the communities concerned. I believe that the people of a community would find it intolerable if the ownership of those valuable stocks of books passed to an enlarged county authority.
I do not believe that the agency provisions outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would provide any thing like the safeguards to district councils in that position—

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): How can my hon. Friend say that? If there is any dispute as to the details of an agency agreement, it is a matter that the Secretary of State can settle. There could be a detailed agency agreement placing the library in Dartford, for example.

Mr. Trew: My right hon. Friend is right to say that this matter could be raised until 1st April, 1974, and that he could exercise his discretion in the case of an appeal. I was about to come to that. Under my Amendment, there is the same provision to settle the matter by 1st April, 1974. But the big difference is that under the Amendment, once the Secretary of State had decided to grant library powers, the district would then remain a library authority for a period of 10 years. My right hon. Friend would not be able to alter that decision until the next review date in 1984.
In the case of my right hon. Friend's appeal procedure under Clause 101, that is fine up to 1st April, 1974. Last night, when speaking on Clause 183, he said that all argument would end on 1st April, 1974. With respect to my right hon. Friend, he is being a little over-optimistic. What will happen when, two or three years after 1974, the bigger,


stronger, richer county councils begin to repent of their bargain on agency provisions? There will be no Secretary of State to turn to. His powers of appeal will have lapsed on 1st April, 1974. There may be departmental sanctions which can be used to ensure that the counties honour their agreements on agency. But under my Amendment those sanctions are unnecessary because once a district council has been designated a library authority it must remain so for 10 years.
For those reasons, I believe that the agency provisions under Clause 101, however much they are buttressed about by departmental guidance notes, directives and caveats and however much they are supported by appeals, are a very poor substitute for the grant of library powers under my Amendment.
Two or three weeks ago I received a telephone call from the Clerk of Dartford Borough Council. He conveyed to me the concern felt by the Smaller Public Libraries Group with which he was in touch over the fact that no Government Amendment had been tabled to the Clause. He asked what he should say to them, and I replied, "Tell them to relax. The Government have given an undertaking, and I am confident that they will honour it". The best way in which the Government can honour that undertaking is by accepting the Amendment, and I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will do just that.

Mr. Walter Johnson: I shall not go over the ground which has been so adequately covered by hon. Members on both sides of the House. To do so would be a waste of time, particularly as many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
I hope that the Secretary of State will be flexible in his approach to this problem, because there are many towns and cities in this country—leaving out Wales, and we know what the position is in Scotland—which have long and wide experience of running public libraries. It seems to me that the Amendment provides the most adequate way of dealing with the situation, because it gives a sense of flexibility and allows the Secretary of State the opportunity of examining the circumstances in any town before a final decision is made. This seems to me

to be completely fair to everyone concerned, and I believe that the Secretary of State would be wise to accept the advice that has been given to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) and accept Amendment No. 1177, because it allows the flexibility that is so necessary.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I refer in particular to Derby because, with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), I represent that town. We have in Derby experience extending over more than 100 years of running our public libraries, a record that is almost unsurpassed. There are perhaps only two or three cities which have greater experience than we have.
Derby has been progressively improving the library facilities of the town and surrounding areas for a long time. In 1968, because of an improvement in the boundary situation, the town had the opportunity of making a greater contribution to the library service. It was able to have a fully cohesive branch library programme, backed by the full resources of the central library. This enabled it to make an outstanding contribution to anyone who wanted to participate in this aspect of public service.
Today in Derby there are 20 libraries which lend more than 2½ million books per annum, and in the Central Reference Library, where students of all ages make considerable use of the large stocks, about 230,000 books were referred to in just one year alone. Derby, being an engineering town, has many students and technicians who need to refer to a reference library, and that has been one of the considerations in building up the library service. Surely such a volume of business is a tribute to those who have worked so hard for such a long time to build up a library service, and it would be wrong to take away these facilities from those who have provided such a service.
As a result of the boundary changes which took place—and this gives the House some idea of the way in which the library service in Derby has improved over the years—between 1968 and 1969 about 44,000 books were loaned by the various libraries. That figure increased in 1970–71 to 170,000. That gives an indication of the volume of service that has been provided and the improvements that


have occurred in the library service in Derby.
The history of Derby in this matter shows periods of rapid expansion. It indicates a progressive line of thought by the local authority. I emphasise that all political opinion in the town supports the idea that this matter should remain under the control of the district council. The council is sure that it can provide a full and comprehensive service, and it would be quite wrong to break up the administration and to interfere in any way with the general running of a service that has provided so much satisfaction to the people of Derby.
I hope that the Secretary of State will look again at this matter and accept Amendment No. 1177. It would seem to give him the manoeuverability necessary to make the right sort of judgment and decision, bearing in mind all the facts. I am sure that this line of thought will commend itself to both sides of the House.

Sir Robin Turton: I want to intervene only briefly to mention what I call the rather reactionary outlook of some of those who support the Amendments. I am sure that Derby is a wonderful library authority. But when Derby is joined to Derbyshire I cannot see why it cannot create an even better library authority.
One argument that has been made is very difficult to counteract, and that is the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) when he said that if Wales is allowed these tiny library authorities—which will be very inefficient—why cannot Dartford and other places have a similar advantage? I cannot answer that one. I have never quite understood what the Secretary of State meant by Clause 201.
Backing up very much what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said, let us recognise that this change put in the Bill was recommended in the evidence given by the Library Association to the Royal Commission in 1966, recommended by that Royal Commission, recommended by the Redcliffe-Maud Report and in the minority report of Mr. Senior to the Redcliffe-Maud Report, recommended in a White Paper produced by the Labour Government,

and recommended in the present Government's White Paper. It has fairly substantial backing.
When we are looking forward to a really good library service, I cannot see why we should boggle at the suggestion in the Clause. Hon. Members of the Opposition are the most reactionary creatures alive when it comes to the library service.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: The right hon. Gentleman has said that we are looking forward to a good library service. What happens if we have that already, as many of us believe we have?

Sir Robin Turton: That is just what I am saying. It is like a bachelor before marriage saying, "I am wonderful and I do not want to give up this state. I am being forced into a marriage by my parents, but I must keep my library service as a bachelor." That seems to be looking at the matter from the wrong aspect.
I want to make two other observations. In 1957 there were about 484 library authorities in England. Today there are 345. Why has there been this decrease in library authorities? What we have been getting is a far better, expanded library service, covering a wider area. That is why I am worried about the attitude of some hon. Members.
8.45 p.m.
I am keen that the aged, the partially sighted, and all the disabled should be able to obtain from the new library service the best facilities that they can. They will not get such facilities if the library service is fragmented. My right hon. Friend has taken the right decision. He may want to help special cases, but that is another matter. I beg him to stick to his guns, because I am sure that he is looking forward to the new library service of the future, which will be vitally important for the coming generation.

Mr. Terry Davis: We on this side have a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and with the Amendment propounded by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew).
It was clear in Standing Committee that most of my hon. Friends and several hon. Members opposite were very concerned about the Government's intention that libraries in non-metropolitan English counties should be run by county councils. As the Bill stands, any library which has been established by a borough or a district council will be transferred automatically to the new county council. Clause 200 is drafted in such a way that in England there is no possibility of local option. If a county council refuses to come to an agency agreement with a district council under Clause 101, the district council cannot do anything about it.
The Secretary of State has now given an assurance, which we welcome, that he will seek to amend the Bill so that he can act as a referee in any dispute between a county and a district council. This assurance is not good enough in respect of libraries, for reasons which I will explain.
There is no doubt that many district councils will want to have library powers. The new non-metropolitan districts will include several towns which have their own excellent libraries and which have been running them for many years. We have heard this evening from hon. Members who represent many of these towns. It is not only the large county boroughs such as Southampton and Plymouth which have been mentioned so often in our debates on the Bill. There are other county boroughs such as Swindon and Derby which have equally strong feelings, and there are many municipal boroughs and district councils which are desperately anxious to keep their own libraries.
The Redditch Urban District Council has an outstanding library. Under the proposals of the Boundary Commission, Redditch will be the second smallest district council in England. I know that both the councillors and the library staff are very upset at the prospect of being merged with the county library service in Hereford and Worcester.
This is not just a matter of sentiment. It is true that libraries are a great source of civic pride. It is a fair summary of the Report of the Roberts Committee on the structure of the library service and of the later Report of the Committee on Standards to say that they found that this civic pride was justified. A district

council with a population of over 40,000 can provide an efficient and comprehensive library service. This conclusion was the basis of the Public Libraries and Museums Act, 1964. After this reorganisation several district councils will exceed that figure.
If there has been any change in the last eight years it has surely been an increasing awareness that libraries are more than a book-lending service. There is a trend towards the use of a library as the basis for a much more comprehensive leisure service.
The hon. Member for Chigwell referred to the example of Thurrock, which is a very good one—an outstanding situation where the local council has used its library as a basis on which to build and to provide other leisure services. The buildings themselves are often used to house other activities such as museums and art galleries and in some cases there is a theatre or concert hall, as in the case of Thurrock. Libraries are becoming local art centres and many hon. Members believe that the best way to encourage this development is to leave the library powers at district level.
Whether we are right or wrong in this belief, there is no doubt about the practical difficulties which will arise if the Bill is not amended.
As I have already explained, a library, a museum and an art gallery are often contained in the same building. The Bill leaves district councils with the power to provide museums and art galleries. That division of power is bound to lead to a conflict over who does what in which part of the building.
Secondly, and more important, there is no clear boundary between books, pamphlets, magazines, manuscripts, photographs and museum objects. When does a museum become a library? I doubt whether the Minister can tell us. These services are closely related and should be provided by the same local authority.
Clause 200 is much too inflexible and rigid as it stands and must be amended. However, I cannot advise my hon. Friends to support Amendment No. 663, moved by the hon. Member for Chigwell, because it goes too far in the other direction. I sympathise with hon. Members who are so concerned about the loss of library powers by district councils which


want to continue to run their own libraries and deserve to do so. Clause 200 reflects the extreme position of giving all library powers to the county council unless they agree to appoint the county council as their agent.
Amendment No. 663 would adopt the equally extreme position of giving all library powers to the district councils unless they employed the county council as their agent. There has already been much praise for the libraries which are run by some district councils and I join in that praise. However, some county libraries are also excellent. I advise my hon. Friends that there are also some district council libraries which are not very good. In some parts of the country in urban and rural areas the county councils do a magnificent job. There is a great danger that Amendment No. 663 would break up these services and transfer library powers to new district councils who do not want them. In some cases the dissolution of county library services would take place against the wishes of the county council and the new district councils.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) sang the praises of the new county library service. His point about education was dealt with by the hon. Member for Dartford. However, I am not sure that fiction is not educational. I was attracted by the point put forward by the hon. Gentleman about dual use, the connection between schools and libraries. I sympathise with that point, but throughout the Bill there are areas where there must be co-operation between district councils and county councils. The county councils will be responsible for the social services and district councils will be responsible for housing. There is a great need for co-operation between those two public services.
The point made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury should not influence us too greatly. I do not agree that it is necessary to have a county library service in order to have co-operation between town and country. The new district councils will include urban and rural areas, and we shall get the co-operation we need in that way. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken in his reference to the size of the

book stock. What matters to the reader is not the size of the stock which exists in the total library service, county or urban district, but whether a particular book is available when he goes into his local library. A reader does not care whether a book which is not available is obtained from the county stock or from the stock of a district council elsewhere.
It is possible to have inter-lending arrangements between district councils. Such arrangements already exist and flourish. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's point regarding the economics of the library service. District councils in many places co-operate in their book buying to ensure that two councils do not buy copies of the same expensive book. This is all part of the library service and a recognised feature of it at present.
I am not sure whether I heard the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) correctly. I think he referred to a bachelor who was forced into marriage by his parents. I hate to call that reactionary, but I must advise the House, as someone who is a little younger than the right hon. Gentleman, that it is a rare occurrence these days for a bachelor to be forced into marriage by his parents.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need to cater for the disabled. However, there is abundant evidence that some district councils are already providing that service. I believe that the district council of Cam borne and Redruth in Cornwall provides that kind of service. It sends out mobile libraries to provide that service for those who are disabled and confined to their homes.
District councils will not be too small and inefficient under the new organisation of local government. They will, in general, be bigger than they are today. Although the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton read out a long list of White Papers and reports which suggested the library service should be provided by district councils, there have been reports on the other side. In particular, there was the Roberts Committee Report.

Sir Robin Turton: I read out the reports which recommended that the library service should be provided by county councils.

Mr. Davis: I am sorry if I made a mistake. I meant that the right hon. Gentleman read a long list which advocated a county library service. However, there have been reports on the other side from committees which considered the subject in depth. It was also debated at length when the Public Libraries and Museums Act was passed in 1964.
In this situation the Government want to rely on Clause 101, especially since the Secretary of State has promised to amend it along the lines suggested the other night. However, I believe there are two weaknesses in the assurance given by the Secretary of State concerning libraries.
First, it would be possible for a new district council to apply for library powers only where it includes within its boundaries the whole of the area of any borough or district council which is already running a library in 1974. This assurance will not help a district council where the old councils did not have library powers.
I will give the Minister an example from my own county of Hereford and Worcester. The Boundary Commission has suggested that there should be seven new district councils. I believe that six of those district councils contain within their areas existing boroughs or district councils with library powers. The seventh district council does not contain within its area a library run by a district council. I believe there should be an opportunity for that seventh district council to apply to the Secretary of State for the power to run its own library. I feel especially strong on this point because that seventh district council consists of two-thirds of my constituency, Bromsgrove.
Suppose the new district council would like its own library. At the moment it will not have the opportunity. The Secretary of State's assurance does not give it that opportunity. I believe it should have that opportunity if it wishes to apply after the new council has been elected.
I must emphasise that I am not advocating the dismemberment of the county library service. No doubt the transfer of responsibility from county to district council should be rare, but it

should be possible, and it is not possible under the Secretary of State's assurance.
Secondly, the Secretary of State will arbitrate only for a limited period during the reorganisation. It will be a once-for-all option. Any district council which does not apply to run its library in 1974 will not be able to apply at some future time. I believe that is a weakness in the Youth Employment Service which was based on a once-for-all option by county councils some years ago. I should like to see a situation where district and county councils can change their minds and apply to the Secretary of State, not as frequently perhaps as they vote on the drinking laws of Wales but at least every ten years.
For these reasons, I urge the Government to accept Amendment No. 1177. It is an excellent Amendment and eminently reasonable. It increases the amount of flexibility in the reorganisation and does not tie the Government's hands. It would put England on the same footing as Wales.
If the Government will not accept Amendment No. 1177, I ask hon. Members on both sides to support it and I hope that the sponsors of Amendment No. 663 will withdraw it in favour of No. 1177 because the latter would give them what they want.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: The remarks just made by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis) about the importance of seeing that districts are encouraged to run the library service, and his feeling that the existing districts with a good library service should be allowed to continue to run them, are in complete contradiction to what has been Labour Party policy to date. I believe that those in the professional library service and in education will be surprised that the Labour Party has changed course on this subject.
In their acceptance of the Redcliffe-Maud report, Ministers in the Labour Government supported the logic of its recommendations on libraries, and one of their proposals was that the library facilities, for example, of Redditch Urban District Council would disappear to become part of Worcestershire and Herefordshire combined—indeed, not even


that, but would become part of Greater Birmingham. The Labour Party has now decided, interestingly enough, as the great advocate of the unitary system, that on this issue at least it should take a different view.

Mr. Denis Howell: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is a grotesque interpretation of the Labour Party's position. The Redcliffe-Maud report, which the Labour Government supported, came out for unitary authorities. The present Government have dismissed that solution. Therefore, we are left with the problem of what to do with the library service in the circumstances which the Government have created. Where we have to choose between one authority and another, we think that the case for the district council has been made out, although we would prefer the unitary authority.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman will find many quotations of Labour Ministers, particularly the Minister who was concerned with the library service, made at the time of the Labour Government's discussions after the Redcliffe-Maud report and the publication of their White Paper, advocating the great advantages of having libraries organised on that basis. I am sure that people in the library service and in education will judge the Labour Party on that basis. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), who has close connections with teaching, will be aware of the teaching profession's views on this matter.
Amendment No. 663 would do considerable harm to the existing library service. I understand the feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) that a district with a good library service should be allowed to continue it, but in the present circumstances and in the light of the proposal for new districts I believe that his proposal would do harm. Of the 275 suggested new districts, only 39 are similar to the present district authorities with library services, while 127 of them are currently wholly served by county library services and 108 are served by a combination of county and district services. To make the 275 districts library authorities would mean the complete dismantling of the library services which operate in by

far the majority of districts in the country, and this would cause considerable disruption.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) both raised the point that the relationship between the library service and education and the educational service were not of great importance. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford when he states that a large proportion of the books are books of fiction and that the greatest use of the library service is for leisure reading. That does not in any way detract from the enormous and growing importance of the library service for education. That is particularly the case in view of the substantial number of the population now taking advantage of the many facilities available for higher education.
I confess that when I decided on a two-tier system for local government my original intention was that libraries should be run at district level. I did so because I felt that the library service, as I had enjoyed it, currently in Worcester, and at one time in Dartford, offered facilities with friendliness and personal attention. I could see no real reason why it should not go to the districts. But when I looked more deeply into the problems that the library service is endeavouring to contend with I found there were enormous advantages, with the vast increase in the number of books and in the number of titles published and with the vast growth in interest in higher education, and the wide range of needs, I thought there were considerable advantages in trying to operate the library service over larger areas.
Understandably my hon. Friend slightly mocked at the concentration on management efficiency at the expense of looking after the person who wanted to borrow a book. But there is no need for these two elements to be contradictory. There is no disadvantage in obtaining maximum management efficiency and the maximum reduction in cost to get the best value for money out of the library service. I believe that the proposals we have made will achieve those objectives.
It is not right for hon. Members completely to ignore the unanimous view of those professionally engaged in the library service and the degree to which the last


conference of the Library Association, which has members operating in district councils at the present time, voted for the service to be at the county level. It is a decision which shows that those professionally engaged in the actual working of the libraries recognise that there are a number of advantages in such a system.
My hon. Friends quite rightly asked why there was a difference for Wales. There are two main factors which led my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to decide on the Welsh provisions. One was that under the Welsh proposals quite a few existing counties are being made into districts. Because of their geographical size and because they have been counties with county educational services, he considered that this provision was needed there. The other factor was the Welsh language. There could be a need in certain parts of Wales to make a designation because of the language factor. That sort of factor does not apply in England.
The debate might have given the impression that the great mass of libraries are operated currently at district level. Apart from London, of 1,251 existing districts 1,048 of them now have their library system operated by the counties. That means that about 80 per cent. of the present districts have their library system operated at county level.
Quite reasonably, my hon. Friends have been concerned about the loss of local connection with some very good existing libraries. This is a matter which I have discussed with my noble Friend the Paymaster-General who has direct responsibility for the library service, and I should like to give my hon. Friends two assurances—first, that he will be preparing for publication and release when the legislation is enacted a memorandum to go to all the new library authorities suggesting the manner in which they should liaise with the districts, the way they should conserve local collections and look after a very wide range and diversity of interest currently connected with libraries. This memorandum, which he will prepare in consultation with those concerned, will have an important impact.
Added to this there is the provision of Clause 101. This is rather interesting. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove had two basic objections to the use of this,

with neither of which I personally agreed. He said that Clause 101 would not apply to a district which did not already have an existing service. That is not so. In fact, it is one of the factors to be taken into account.

Mr. Terry Davis: I said that the assurance given by the Secretary of State on Monday night—and, on reading HANSARD, it is obvious that he was quite explicit—was that it would be a once-for-all option and that these powers would be for districts which already had them. The Amendment was on those lines.

Mr. Walker: But I did not accept the Amendment. All the hon. Gentleman is doing is referring to the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) which was not accepted by the House, and the new Clause which we shall provide will enable districts without having this existing function to apply. I do not think that in reality it will have very much effect. Nor do I think it would have very much effect under the provisions in my hon. Friend's Amendment No. 1177. One must recognise the manner in which subsection (6) of that Amendment is likely to be exercised by the Ministers concerned. In fact, the power is given to the Secretary of State.
In reality, in exercising that power I would consult my noble Friend the Paymaster-General who has direct responsibility for the library service. The criteria that any Minister, knowing the problems of the library service, is likely to apply to subsection (6) of that Amendment would mean, for example, that a district that had never had any experience at all of library services, with a tolerably small catchment area of population, would have no possibility under the Amendment or under Clause 101 of being able to go ahead in providing a library service.

Mr. Trew: What my right hon. Friend is saying is that the Secretary of State would exercise the power if he were convinced that the library service was being improved. If that is so, what has he got to lose by accepting the Amendment?

Mr. Walker: I am recommending that we should not accept the Amendment, but certainly I wish to make it clear that if one applied the Amendment as drafted


and particularly applied subsection (6), in terms of the thinking of the present Minister directly responsible for libraries, the effect of the application would not be to the liking of my hon. Friend and almost certainly it would not be to the liking of the Dartford district.

Dr. Stuttaford: Is my right hon. Friend really suggesting that the prejudices of the present Postmaster-General will overcome the justification or otherwise of the claim which is made?

Mr. Walker: I do not think anything I said implied that. What it implies is that there are certain advantages to the library system which are known to those professionally involved in libraries. It would be wrong under this Amendment for a Minister, knowing those advantages and knowing the better service that could be provided if those advantages were present, to interpret his decisions under this Amendment in any other way. I am not saying that, as a result, there are not districts which would not be accepted under this provision. I am pointing out that many of those who advocate the sort of case which we have heard argued tonight would be disappointed by the application of the Amendment.
9.15 p.m.
There are several advantages to be gained from using the Clause 101 procedure rather than the procedure under Amendment 1177. One of the biggest single advantages, perhaps, is the advantage which an agency arrangement could give as opposed to complete power being in the hands of a district, that over a county area there will be facilities and resources to be made available as part of an agency arrangement with a district, and it is this type of arrangement which is likely to be concluded through use of the Clause 101 method.

Mr. John Silkin: Agency, like marriage, requires two parties to work it. It is all very well to say that it would be of use. It would be of use only if both sides agreed and, of course, one side may well not agree.

Mr. Walker: Under the Clause 101 procedure, up till April, 1974, the terms of an agency agreement can be approved and agreed by the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] That is now the position,

with the Secretary of State acting as arbitrator. I believe that the existence of that procedure will result in those districts which have a good library system linked with the local people being able to negotiate in this period a sensible agency arrangement, with all the range of advantages which it could give, with the county authority. Also, it would result in an end to the uncertainty, which is very important for the staff.
I must emphasise that there are considerable advantages for the career structure in operating a library service overall on a county basis. This is one of the reasons why the staff of libraries have been virtually unanimous in their support of our proposal.

Mr. Denis Howell: The main plank of the right hon. Gentleman's case is that the professionals in the library service believe absolutely in the need for a county based service. In that case, why on earth should the counties ever agree to such an agency arrangement? They will not agree to it.

Mr. Walker: There is plenty of chance of their doing so. In fact, in joint consultations, many counties have already expressed their readiness to operate an agency arrangement with large county boroughs. It is not right to say that they will not operate the system on that basis. I believe that the new Clause which I shall introduce in the other place will bring greater strength to negotiations taking place in that connection, and I think that the advantages to the library service as a whole will be considerable. Until this debate, the Opposition, too, had considered that the advantages would be considerable.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern on this matter, and I assure them that we shall have careful consultations with the Association of Municipal Corporations, which represents many of the county boroughs anxious on this point, as to the nature of the advice which we shall give in a circular on the operation of Clause 101. Obviously, there will be matters of importance in that circular with reference to reaching sensible agency arrangements. I believe that the purpose which my hon. Friends have in mind is much more likely to be secured, and secured quickly, by a sensible use of Clause 101, with the new Clause which we shall


introduce in the other place, than it would be under the proposals in Amendment 1177, or Amendment No. 663, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell. I hope, therefore, that the House will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Whitehead: I urge the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) not to withdraw his Amendment No. 1177 but to persist in it, in view of the Minister's disappointing reply.
The right hon. Gentleman began by trying to hang round our necks on this side of the House our acceptance of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals for unitary authorities in quite different circumstances. We are now asked to accept a dual system, with two types of authority, and, on the basis of the merits of the argument in the present case, we must decide which function shall be discharged by the top-tier authority and which by the second-tier authority.
It is the experience of many Members that the discharge of responsibility for library facilities by some, not necessarily all, borough library authorities, which have done such a remarkable job in the past, would be to the advantage of those who matter most, those with whom the House should be absorbed, the consumers, those who most use the library services. I do not believe that if we were to rely on the diaphonous assurance given tonight by the Secretary of State we should see any meaningful negotiations for agency arrangements under Clause 101. I cannot believe that if the new top-tier authorities accepted, as I am sure they would, the arguments for scale put forward by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), they would want to enter into that kind of negotiation with second-tier authorities.
For that reason I support, and hope to support in the Lobby Amendment No. 1177. My reasons are precisely those which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis) argued in his comprehensive and lucid speech. I was not privileged to serve on the Standing Committee, but I understand that Amendment No. 1177 does not provide that inevitably district councils should be designated library authorities, but simply puts it at the discretion of the Minister, having regard to the safeguards set forth in the Amendment.
Personally, I am torn between the two types of authority. No one who has advanced some of the considerable merits of the existing borough library authorities would say that this was a matter of black and white, that each borough service was always marvellous and that it had been shown that the services provided by the county authorities were in some way always worse. They provide different services.
In Derbyshire, where I live, the services provided by the county authorities are different in nature because they serve a rural community, a community which wants travelling libraries and so on much more than the kind of cohesive cultural centre that is provided by the borough authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) also mentioned experience in Derby. The library services in Derby have been provided for 101 years and anyone having recourse to them is having recourse not merely to a library but to a whole cultural entity which shapes one's life and relates to the town and community in which one lives. It is the view of all those who enjoy those services that they are being adequately and satisfactorily provided and that to tamper with them now or to put them under a top-tier authority would in no sense be an improvement.
Under one and the same roof as the library in Derby one can see the works of our leading painter Joseph Wright and the museum where there is everything from the Ark Wright spinning jenny to the RB211 and the work of other advanced technologists and scientists in Derby, and very shortly one will also see the new centre for the living arts. All these things are brought together under one local authority locally responsible.
I do not agree with the arguments of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). He said that what we had might be very good, but the larger unit would probably be better still and we should not shiver on the brink when we could get in and enjoy it. I did not hear him saying that in the arguments about the European Communities Bill recently. No doubt it is a question of horses for courses in Thirsk and Malton as everywhere else. To that argument I would simply say that we are not arguing that the top-tier


authorities and the new counties are in any way to be denigrated. We are simply saying that if services are being adequately and satisfactorily provided, they should be left as they are.

Sir Robin Turton: There is a difference in marriage depending on whom one marries. I should have thought that Derby would find Derbyshire an attractive partner. That is rather different from the argument about the Six.

Mr. Whitehead: I hope that one marries a partner with complementary qualities to oneself and does not try to get more of a good thing if one has a lot of a good thing already.
Since the Minister is unwilling to accept Amendment No. 1177 or an Amendment like it, I hope that the House will overturn the right hon. Gentleman's proposals and will vote for the proposals of the hon. Member for Dartford outlined in his very comprehensive Amendment, which I wholeheartedly support.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Few matters of local authority function are clear-cut. In spite of the impassioned feelings they arouse, there are generally conflicting and balancing considerations about the best way in which to administer them. Libraries are no exception. We want to make the right decision on this matter, particularly because of the nature of the subject and the pleasure which most of us have derived from books and libraries.
I appreciate the arguments of the professional librarian. I appreciate the arguments of the Library Association, the Society of County Librarians and the Hertford County Council and their plea for the advantages of a larger unified library system and those economies of scale about which we heard so much in another context. But these are matters which perhaps are reflected mainly in the context of the more specialist requirements. It is difficult to see that the requirements of the specialist and the researcher can be met from even the county library. Certainly they cannot be met from the individual branches of county libraries in our smaller towns.
The greater the degree of specialisation, the greater the degree of concentration.

But I doubt whether the ordinary reader is much concerned with the specialist requirements. The ordinary reader attaches importance to a reasonable volume of choice, accessibility, an intimate atmosphere, personal attention and the feeling that it is part of the local cultural complex. Therefore, the optimum situation may well be well-stocked local libraries with highly developed inter-library loan services and a background of more specialised services.
We have heard of the larger boroughs and their library services. I wish to make brief reference to a smaller town providing a very good library service as an urban district. I refer to the library service in Cheshunt, in my constituency, with an annual expenditure on the service of £1,530 per 1,000 people, well above the national average; an issue of books per head above the national average; a library service point within half a mile of any resident; special deposits and collections at old people's homes; and the only music library in the County of Hertford.

Mr. Maddan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend include Watford in what he says about the music library?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: So far as I know, that is so—andthere does not seem to be any contradiction coming from the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck).
9.30 p.m.
Library services like that in Cheshunt clearly should be allowed to continue. I would not argue that districts should be allowed or encouraged, still less compelled, to provide library services if they do not have the means, will, resources and resolution to do it, but if on an objective test it can be shown that they have these things, then they should have the right to provide a library service. That is the philosophy of Clause 201 applied to Wales. It takes as the criteria not only the capacity to provide an efficient service but the effect on the county library service which I wish to uphold and protect.
Under the Clause and the Amendment the Secretary of State is to be in the position of an objective arbiter considering the issues, no doubt in a quasi-judicial manner, and responsible to Parliament under the negative procedure. It would


hardly be right for Parliament to judge an Act which is to have a permanent place on the Statute Book simply by the current feelings of particular Ministers in this regard. Therefore, I join with those who hope that ways will be found of preserving a district library service for those districts which are both competent to provide it and which are desired to provide it by the general will of the people in their locality.

Dame Joan Vickers: I support the Amendment moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew), and I congratulate him on his work in Committee. My hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Dartford said:
With the permission of the Committee, if the hon. Member for Widnes and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford would consider withdrawing their Amendments, I will take the matter up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 7th March, 1972; c. 2449.]
I should like to know what was the reply from the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) mentioned many organisations, but he omitted to refer to the Association of Municipal Corporations, which has this to say:
Many small towns at present provide outstanding library services of the kind described. Clearly they are not in a position to maintain as extensive a stock of reference books as one would expect to find in a large city. However, it would be idle to suppose that a library service provided by a county council would more easily be able to provide such material in each small town. At best, it could be held at the county central library; but if the central libraryis at some distance from the intending reader, this would present no advantage over the existing well-developed system of inter-library loans. Conversely, it would be difficult for a county council to respond adequately to the intensely local demands generated by a local library service.
That is what the Association of Municipal Corporations, which knows a great deal about the problem, has to say about this crucial matter. The library service has little in common with the education service at the operational level, as stated in the Roberts Report.
Even with an agency service Plymouth will be in difficulties. There is what

might perhaps be termed a love-hate relationship between Plymouth and Devon county. For many years Plymouth has had an outstanding librarian in charge of the main library and 15 branch libraries. It is the principal reference library for Devon and Cornwall. Plymouth has this dual rôle to play for both counties. Anyone living within Devon county may belong to the lending library, which has a membership of over 100,000, plus 10,000 from Devon county.
Plymouth provides an exceptional service because there are exceptional establishments in the town. There are the Polytechnic, the Teachers' Training College, the College of Further Education, the College of Art and the School of Navigation—the only one in the country.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton referred to special services. We have very special services for the handicapped who have books delivered to their homes. We supply books to old folks' residential homes. Every blind person can borrow three talking books at one time and the books are supplied not just to Plymouth but to the whole of the region.
We provide our service in Six Counties of the South West. For example, music scores for choirs and orchestras in the Six Counties are supplied from Plymouth—not from Devon County or Cornwall County or even from Gloucester or Wiltshire, but the service is provided by Plymouth. At present 11,000 manuscripts are out on loan to people in the Six Counties. The same applies to drama, and sets of plays go out to Devon and Cornwall from Plymouth; some 11,000 of these sets go out on loan at the same time.
Furthermore, a business information service is provided from the City of Plymouth Library to Devon and Cornwall. At the moment there is a Centrax factory in Newton Abbot which is using this service. There is also a reference library for the whole of Devon and Cornwall. We also have a unique children's service called the "Good Readers Circle". This has 14,000 members who are taught to read literature that is considered worthwhile. This is the only service of its kind in the country.
We have a children's library which runs holiday courses lasting 14 days at


which children are encouraged to search for references on a particular theme; there are then question and answer sessions and the children put their findings in writing. We have a gramophone lending section, and Lord Denning nominated Plymouth as a manorial repository. We have an archives department with an excellent specialist in charge. We spend as much as 7p per head out of the rates on these services.
As over 80 per cent. of our rates go direct to Devon County and at any time the representatives of Plymouth can be outvoted by the representatives of Devon County, we should like to know how we shall be able to uphold our standards in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) said in Committee that Plymouth would not be administered by foreigners. We have a completely different outlook in Plymouth from that adopted in the rest of the county. We consider that we should not be administered by those who have no direct knowledge of the Library. The 1964 legislation has proved very successful and I see no reason for changing it in 1972. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree to accept the Amendment No. 1177 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I agree very much with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devon port (Dame Joan Vickers). I must say that, having listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I wondered whether he and I were living in the same world. So many of the limitations which he appeared to believe apply to local district libraries certainly do not apply to the one I know best in the city of Lancaster.
Lancaster has always enjoyed an excellent public library service. My right hon. Friend said that a library should cater for the needs of higher education. We have not only a university, but also probably one of the best teacher-training colleges in the country. We have no fewer than 2,000 students who are members of our city library service who borrow books constantly and steadily.
We have a first-class library service to our hospitals—both to our mental hos-

pitals as appropriate and to our very large district hospital. We have an excellent and well-established service to our home-bound. We supply all the local old people's homes, the prison and the schools. We also have the largest reference library between Preston and Carlisle. Like Plymouth, we have excellent manorial records. We are one of the few public libraries to have been recognised by the Master of the Rolls as repositories for manorial records.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the last conference of the Library Association, which voted for libraries to be in the hands of county authorities. However, in January of this year every chief librarian in the country from the smallest authority to the largest city was asked to state whether he preferred libraries to be operated at district level or at county level. I understand that there was a majority of five to two in favour of libraries being operated at district level.
I feel strongly that this is a service which is far more appropriate to those who understand the needs of the localities at the grass-roots level. I very much deprecate its being taken over by the countries.

Dr. Stuttaford: I am grateful for an opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew), who has done so much work on this Amendment. I shall not put the case in detail now; indeed, it does not need to be put again. However, one or two arguments have to be repeated.
One that we hear constantly suggests that a small minority of radical urban dwellers can control the great majority of those who live in rural areas. That is quite untrue. When it comes to local government or national government, it is not the dynamism of the speaking which counts. It is the votes, and in this respect the votes are those of the large rural areas.
If we hand over the district libraries of the county boroughs to the larger areas of the new counties, we shall lose control of them. I wish to look at just one facet of the library-museum service in my own area. The amount of money spent by Norwich on our museum is about £120,000 a year. The amount spent by the county on the same museum


is £4,500. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) has been kind enough to hand me some figures showing that throughout the country it is the urban dwellers who have built up the library service. It is not only cruel but wrong that this service should be taken away from them.
We have heard how the libraries in these areas are lending libraries. However, they are also centres of research, cultural centres, centres for the collection of archives, and so on. This is a service which is not being given by the county in the same way, since the county has to devote the majority of its resources to quite a different standard of library service, taking books to those living in scattered areas rather than providing centres of cultural research such as those that we have to have in the cities. To dilute that necessary and concentrated service by putting it under the control of those who have been running a totally different service seems to be quite wrong.
I can understand that in some parts of the country it might be right for the service to be operated at county level. If that is the case, why not consider the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford and allow the local authorities to have some flexibility? We need to get back to the days when the Tory Party was the party of freedom of choice, not the party of dogma and of central control. We are the party of flexibility, and this should be a good Tory principle. That will be seen to be so if we adopt Amendment No. 1177 allowing local authorities to appeal to the Secretary of State.
I was a little worried by the reply of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It appears that because the Paymaster-General is known to favour the counties, we are to get little change out of the Government and we might as well not bother to vote on this Amendment. We feel that that is wrong. If we are to have a ministerial opinion, we need an objective and not a prejudiced one. We must avoid this sort of situation in the future.
9.45 p.m.
There has been no talk of museums. As the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said, in many places museums and libraries are combined. We

have heard nothing about the transfer orders which will come in when the Bill becomes an Act. Will they be temporary, as the Paymaster-General's Department thinks they will be, or will they be permanent as the Department of the Environment thinks? This is rather a nasty problem, a complete dichotomy of view, to which no one has given the answer.
We know that there will be consultations with local authorities, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and with the Paymaster-General, but no one has said whether the transfer order will be permanent or temporary. This is a fundamental importance to museum authorities, who have a career structure to consider.
Libraries and museums are not run for the people who run them. They are run for the general public, and the general public want to keep their county borough libraries in the county boroughs. I think that many hon. Members on this side of the House will find it very difficult not to support my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford if he decides not to withdraw his Amendment.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The air has been filled with the sound of grinding constituency axes, and my constituency is no exception. I have an axe which I should like to grind, but I shall resist the temptation to do so because I want to put to my right hon. Friend one general point which has not so far been mentioned in this somewhat protracted debate.
I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that we all wish to see good and effective local councillors in these second-tier authorities. How can he hope to attract men and women with cultural interests and of a higher standard of education to serve on the new authorities which he is creating unless he gives them something to get their cultural teeth into? This means not depriving them of their libraries. I feel that there are enough necessary changes in the Bill, without adding unnecessary changes—which this is.
I feel sure that we can acquit my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of wishing to emasculate the second-tier authorities, but I ask him to realise that he must not de-tribalise them.

Mr. Maddan: It has been agreeable listening to the debate, because there is nothing nicer than to hear of people's pride in the quality of their local services. What has struck me is that nearly every hon. Member has the best library service in England, and that is a very agreeable product of the present system, but I do not think there is any reason to imagine that that state of affairs will not continue under the system proposed by my right hon. Friend.
The counties provide a very good library service. Most library authorities provide a good library service. Some very large boroughs perhaps provide outstanding library services. That is the fact, and what my right hon. Friend proposes would meet the point about the very good town library.
It has been suggested that every borough wants to keep its library. I come from a borough which is happy to see the responsibility for the library taken on by the East Sussex County Council in conjunction with the library services for the area as a whole. It is not that we do not have a good library—we do. It is not that it does not play a large part in the culture and life of the town—it does, particularly since our town hall was burned down. But it is considered by those who are involved in the running of the library that being part of a bigger whole will bring real advantages to the people of Hove, and the point needs to be made because it is an example of a point that I do not think that anyone else has made.
The Borough Librarian of Hove beseeched me to catch your eye Mr. Speaker if my hon. Friend the member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) did, and I thank you for having allowed me to do so.

Mrs. Connie Monks: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has not been able to give way on this matter of libraries.
I have been a member of a library committee for a considerable time and have a little experience of a small town library. I have found that a library is easier to administer from the centre of a compact area. That is why our older libraries have grown up in the places in which they are. County libraries have come later to cover a scattered area. My

experience is that people from the villages around my small town come into the town to our library because they cannot get what they want from a county library. The borough provides this service absolutely free to county ratepayers.
The county service is more or less in its infancy. It is growing, but that does not mean that at this stage it is ready to take over the existing, very efficient, well used libraries in towns. I do not see why the two cannot go on growing as they are without this takeover bid from the county councils. My town has provided a wonderful exchange service with bigger libraries so that we can supply books to our townspeople and county people at no cost to themselves. We have run a hospital library service. The county provides mobile libraries which are very well used in the villages and much appreciated; but as yet the county has not covered all my villages with libraries built in them. This will come in time and other facilities will be provided, particularly for young people, for whom there will be all-purpose buildings rather than purely libraries.
I hope that even at this late stage my right hon. Friend will be able to give way a little on this point.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I apologise for intervening in a debate to the whole of which I have not listened. It is something that I rarely do. I shall not speak for more than one minute.
I was tempted to intervene by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan), who made a very good case for the county library. I agree with him entirely. The county library does a magnificent job, but it is a job quite different from that of the borough library. The borough library operates a good deal in the nature of a club. That aspect of the library emerges from the local interest from individuals within the town who take a passionate interest in it. It would be an awful pity to throw away that. Why cannot the two live together?
In Northampton we are very anxious to keep this sort of cultural club we have. It cannot be kept if it is impersonalised by becoming part of the county. This is not a criticism of the county; it is just that the two things do not fit.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Mr. Biggs-Davison: I should like to have answered some of the observations


of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on my Amendment but, as the hour is late, I shall merely exercise my right of reply to beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 1177, in page 141, leave out line 4 and insert:
'(d) the council of a district who have been constituted a library authority under the following provisions of this section;
shall be a library authority for those purposes.

(2) The council of a district in England may at any time before 1st April, 1974 apply to the Secretary of State for an order constituting the council a library authority and the Secretary of State may, if he thinks it expedient to do so having regard to—
(a) the capacity of the council to provide an efficient library service for their district; and
(b) the effect which the order would have on the library service which is to be provided by the council of the new county comprising that district;
and after consulting the council of the new county, make an order constituting the district council a library authority as from a date, not earlier than 1st April, 1974, specified in the order.
(3) While the Secretary of State is considering an application by the council of a district for an order under subsection (2) above, he may make an order constituting that council a library authority for a period beginning with 1st April, 1974 and ending on a date specified by the Secretary of State on deciding to make or not to make the order applied for.
(4) A council of a district in England which is not a library authority may within the period of six months beginning with any review date apply to the Secretary of State for an order constituting the council a library

authority and if, after consulting the authority which is then the library authority for that district and after taking account of any likely changes in the area and population of that district and of any other matters appearing to him to be relevant, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the order would lead to an improvement in the library facilities in that district and would not prejudicially affect the library facilities in the county or the area of the joint board, as the case may be, he may make an order constituting the council a library authority as from a date specified in the order.

(5) Where during the said period of six months the Secretary of State is satisfied, after consulting the council of a district which is a library authority and such other library authorities as appear to him to be concerned, that if the council of the district ceased to be a library authority, that would lead to an improvement in the library facilities in that district or in the county or area of the joint board, as the case may be, he may by order provide that as from a date specified in the order the council of that district shall cease to be a library authority.
(6) An order under this section constituting a district council a library authority may impose on the district council such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit for securing the performance by them of their functions under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.
(7) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(8) In this section "review date" means 1st April in 1984 and every tenth year there after'.—[Mr. Trew.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made—

The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 130.

Division No. 306.]
AYES
[9.55 p.m.


Allen, Scholefield
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ellis, Tom
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Atkinson, Norman
Evans, Fred
Kaufman, Gerald


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ewing, Henry
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Biggs-Davison, John
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kinnock, Neil


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Michael
Lamond, James


Booth, Albert
Forrester, John
Lawson, George


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Buchan, Norman
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Cant, R. B.
Golding, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Gourlay, Harry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Cooks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hamling, William
McBride, Neil


Coleman, Donald
Hannam, John (Exeter)
McCartney, Hugh


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Crawshaw, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Mackie. John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hornby, Richard
Mackintosh, John P.


Davidson, Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Huckfield, Leslie
McNamara, J. Kevin


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Marquand, David


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hunter, Adam
Moate, Roger


Dormand, J. D.
Janner, Greville
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Dunnett, Jack
John, Brynmor
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)




Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Torney, Tom


Murray, Ronald King
Rowlands, Ted
Tuck, Raphael


Oakes, Gordon
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Urwin, T. W.


O'Malley, Brian
Sinclair, Sir George
Vickers, Dame Joan


Paget, R. T.
Spriggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Stallard, A. W.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Pentland, Norman
Steel, David
Whitehead, Phillip


Prescott, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Price, William (Rugby)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Probert, Arthur
Taverne, Dick



Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. Peter Trew and Mr. Harold Walker.


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Thompson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)



Rose, Paul B.
Tinn, James



NOES


Adley, Robert
Gummer, Selwyn
Normanton, Tom


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nott, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Havers, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Higgins, Terence L.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Hiley, Joseph
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Benyon, W.
Hill, James (Southampton. Test)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Holt, Miss Mary
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Boscawen, Robert
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Redmond, Robert


Bray, Ronald
Hunt, John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Buck, Antony
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jopling, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chichester-Clark, R.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sharples, Sir Richard


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Speed, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Kinsey. J. R.
Spence, John


Cockeram, Eric
Kirk, Peter
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Cooper, A. E.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Crouch, David
Knox, David
Stokes, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Le Marchant, Spencer
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dean, Paul
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tebbit, Norman


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Dixon, Piers
Luce, R. N.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Tilney, John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Eyre, Reginald
Madel, David
Waddington, David


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Miscampbell, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard


Fortescue, Tim
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fox, Marcus
Molyneaux, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Gibson-Watt, David
Money, Ernle
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)



Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Paul Hawkins and Mr. Kenneth Clarke.


Gray, Hamish
Neave, Airey



Green, Alan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Local Government Bill, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill [Lords] and the Sri Lanka Republic Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Barber.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Orders of the Day — Clause 204

CHARITIES

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 693, in page 144, line 4, after 'London', insert:
'other than the parish council, parish meeting or representative body of an existing rural parish in England (but including the corporation of a borough included in a rural district)'.
Charitable property held by an existing local authority will, by Clause 204, be vested in the new authority. That is because all existing authorities come to an end and rise again as the new authorities, except for parishes, so we have had to make an exception there. This drafting Amendment is necessary because parish councils, parish meetings, and representative bodies in England are, in general, to continue after 1st April, 1974. This exception is necessary to take account of that.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 694, in page 144, line 19, after 'is', insert:
'the council of the parish constituted under Part V of Schedule 1 to this Act or, where there is no such parish'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 206

LOCAL LAND CHARGES

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 721, in page 147, line 36, leave out from 'words' to 'and' in line 39 and insert:
'from "county" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "district or London borough and the Common Council of the City of London" '.
The Amendment is concerned with the application to Greater London of the definition of "local authority" for the registration of civil aviation orders as local land charges in Section 33 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949.
By a series of legislative changes we have accidentally lost the London boroughs. It is a case perhaps of the side winds of change. Therefore, we have had to reintroduce them into the Clause. That is what the Amendment does.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 207

LOCAL LICENCE DUTIES

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 724, in page 149, line 11, leave out 'subsections (1) and (2)' and insert 'sub-section (1)'.
With this Amendment I think it may be convenient to take Amendment No. 725. We found that in amending the Dog Licences Act, 1959, to bring it into line with the Bill, we had licensed dogs within the common council of the City of London rather than the geographical area of the City. The Amendment now corrects this canine inconsistency.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 725, in page 149, line 15, at end add:
'and in subsection (2) of that section for the words "counties and county boroughs" there shall be substituted the words "districts and London boroughs and the City of London" '.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 208

CEMETERIES AND CREMATORIA

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 794, in page 149, line 35, leave out from 'control' to 'contain' in line 36 and insert:
'of the cemeteries of burial authorities and any such order may—
(a) an inhabitant of the place; or the order; and
(b)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this Amendment we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 795, 805 to 819 and 796 to 804.

Mr. Speed: This series of Amendments deals with burial and cremation. By the end of this week afficionados of the Bill will be more than personally interested in the Amendments. Amendment No. 794 is intended to make it clearer that an order under Clause 208 (3) can embody not only powers required by burial authorities for the operation of


their cemeteries but also provisions relating to good order, decency, and the carrying out of burials with a proper regard for public health. A penalty is required for breach of those provisions. They would supersede the cemetery bye-laws which some authorities now have and which they can enforce under penalty.
Amendment No. 795 would provide that it was necessary to continue to require consultation with local authority associations before the Secretary of State makes an order governing the management of burial authorities' cemeteries, but in regard to various other interested bodies the word "associations" is not appropriate and in that context the Amendment deletes it. There must, for example, be consultation with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and many other bodies wish to be consulted. Amendments Nos. 805, 806 and 807 are drafting Amendments.
On Amendment No. 808 paragraph (1) of the Schedule provides for the transfer of burial functions from the authorities dissolved by Clause 208(l)(b), to two or more new burial authorities in those cases lettered (b) and (d) to (i) in the paragraph where the area for which a dissolved authority was responsible will fall in more than one local government area on 1st April, 1974.
Paragraph (2) of the Schedule requires the successor authorities to form a joint committee under Part VI of the Bill unless they establish a joint board under Section 6 of the Public Health Act, 1936. There are likely to be instances where one or more of the successor authorities might prefer to drop out or it would be more satisfactory for one of the authorities to take over completely. Where the matter is considered by the successor authorities before 1st April, 1974 and they inform the Department in time of their conclusion, the Secretary of State can suitably make appropriate provision in the order which will need to be made under Clause 244 to provide for the transfer of property and staff of the authorities which are to be dissolved.
Amendment No. 812 makes good two omissions. First, it applies the requirement under Section 2(2) of the Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879, as does the existing law, to the councils of

London boroughs and the Common council as well as to a district council. Secondly, it applies this requirement to the provision of a crematorium by any of these authorities. Amendments Nos. 809, 810 and 811, 813, 814 and 815 are drafting Amendments.
On Amendment No. 816, the existing law in Part III of Schedule 5 of the Public Health Act, 1875, prohibits burials in any church built since 1848 in any urban district—that is, existing borough and urban districts. Paragraph 15 of the Schedule as printed adapts that provision to the new local government areas outside Greater London, which will not be classified as "urban" or "rural". The Amendment is necessary to make it clear that in Greater London the prohibition continues, as at present, to apply in the outer London boroughs. The prohibition has never applied in Inner London. These cases are dealt with by Order in Council under the Burial Act, 1852.
Amendment No. 817 concerns the new paragraph 15A which repeals the ministerial control which no longer serves any useful purpose. It relates to unconsecrated ground which is sometimes used by burial authorities in the interim period for allotments pending its use for burials. This is a matter which nowadays can be left to local discretion and planning control. The proposed paragraph 15B re-enacts the existing law with modifications made necessary by the Bill. Paragraph 15C enacts the new Section 9(1) of the Burial Act, 1900. It frees burial authorities from a requirement imposed by the existing Section 9 that the Home Secretarys sanction must be obtained for the allotment of an unconsecrated part of a cemetery to particular denominations or religious bodies. The Home Office regards this control as unnecessary.
10.15 p.m.
Paragraph 15D provides a necessary definition of the
area subject to the Welsh Church Act.
Amendments Nos. 818 and 819 are drafting.
Amendments Nos. 796 and 797 are linked. The change to the past tense makes it clear that a parochial church council's duty to maintain a closed churchyard extends to cases where the churchyard has been closed by Order in


Council before the provisions m the present Bill come into force. This alteration reproduces the existing law in Section 18 of the Burial Act, 1855.
Amendments Nos. 798, 799, 801 and 802 are linked and enable a parochial church council to transfer responsibility for a churchyard closed by Order in Council to a parish meeting where there is no separate parish council; to a district council in Wales where there is no separate community council; and to a London borough council, but not to the Common Council of the City.
This is an improvement on the present law under which in a parish without a parish council, the parochial church council can repeatedly require reimbursement for maintenance work but cannot transfer responsibility for doing the work.

Amendments Nos. 800, 803 and 804 are drafting Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made:

No. 795, in page 149, line 43, leave out 'other associations representative of' and insert 'with'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 26

CEMETERIES AND CREMATORIA

Amendments made: No. 805, in page 316, line 9, at end insert 'acting jointly'.

No. 806, in page 316, line 19, leave out 'a parish council' and insert 'parish councils'.

No. 807, in page 316, line 31, leave out 'a community council' and insert 'community councils'.

No. 808, in page 317, line 10, at end insert:
3A. Where in pursuance of paragraph 2 above two or more burial authorities make arrangements under Part VI of this Act for the discharge of their functions by a joint committee, and if any of those authorities wish, and one or more of the others do not wish, to alter the arrangements, the arrangements may be changed or ended—
(a) where those authorities are the councils of parishes or communities or groups of parishes or communities situated in the same district, by the council of that district;
(b) in any other case, by the Secretary of State.

No. 809, in page 317, line 12, leave out 'to 127' and insert '125'.

No. 894, in page 317, line 18, leave out 'representative body' and insert 'parish trustees'

No. 810, in page 317, line 23, leave out 'separately chargeable' and insert 'chargeable only'.

No. 811, in page 317, line 32, leave out 'district council' and insert 'council of the district'.

No. 812, in page 317, line 45, leave out from 'by' to 'as' in line 46 and insert:
'the council of a district or London borough or the Common Council outside their respective areas for the purpose of a cemetery or crematorium'.

No. 813, in page 318, line 7, at end insert:
 'and duly confirmed.
(2) The confirming authority in relation to byelaws made under this paragraph shall be the Secretary of State'.

No. 818, in page 318, line 11, after 'under', insert 'section 146(3) or'.

No. 814, in page 318, line 18, after 'but', insert '(a)'.

No. 815, in page 318, line 20, at end insert:
'and
(b) section 10 of that Act (cemeteries not to be within a certain distance of houses) shall cease to have effect on 1st April 1974'.

No. 816, in page 318, line 42, at end insert:
'shall in Greater London apply only within the outer London boroughs and'.

No. 817, in page 318, line 48, at end insert:
15A. It shall not be necessary for a burial authority to obtain the leave of the Secretary of State under section 6 of the Burial Act 1900 to apply to any other purpose unconsecrated ground maintained by them and set apart for the purposes of burial, and accordingly that section shall cease to have effect.
15B. For section 7 of the Burial Act 1900 there shall be substituted the following section: —
7.—(1) The incumbent of an ecclesiastical parish situated wholly or partly in an area chargeable with the expenses of a cemetery shall, with respect to his own parishioners and to persons dying in his parish, be under the same obligation to


perform funeral services in the consecrated part, if any, of the cemetery as he has to perform funeral services in any churchyard of the ecclesiastical parish.
(2) For the purpose of the Burial Laws Amendment Act 1880 (burial without rites of the Church of England) the consecrated part, if any, of a cemetery provided by a burial authority shall be regarded as a graveyard of a parish or ecclesiastical district or place if all or any part of the parish or ecclesiastical district or place is situated in the area chargeable with the expenses of the cemetery.
(3) Burials in the consecrated part of a cemetery provided by a burial authority shall be registered in the same way and subject to the same provisions as burials in the unconsecrated part.
(4) This section does not apply to a cemetery in the area subject to the Welsh Church Act 1914'.
15C. For section 9 of the Burial Act 1900 there shall be substituted the following section: —
9.—(1) A burial authority may set apart for the use of a particular denomination or religious body any part of the cemetery which has not been consecrated, satisfying themselves, however, that a sufficient part of the cemetery remains unconsecrated and not so set apart.
(2) Any part of a cemetery in the area subject to the Welsh Church Act 1914 which was consecrated before the end of March 1920 or in respect of which a ceremony of consecration has been performed since that time in accordance with the rites of the Church in Wales shall be treated for the purposes of this section as having been set apart for the use of that Church (and as not having been consecrated)'.
15D. For section 11 of the Burial Act 1900 there shall be substituted the following section: —
11. In this Act "area subject to the Welsh Church Act 1914" means the area in which the Church of England was disestablished by that Act'.

No. 819, in page 319, line 5, after 'of', insert:
'the Burial Act 1900 and'.

Orders of the Day — Clause 209

MAINTENANCE OF A CLOSED CHURCHYARD

Amendments made: No. 796 in page 150, line 17, leave out 'is' and insert 'has been'.

No. 797, in page 150, line 20, leave out 'thereafter'.

No. 798, in page 150, line 27, leave out from 'churchyard' to end of line 30 and insert:
(b) if the churchyard is in a parish not having a separate parish council, serve such a request on the chairman of the parish meeting;
(c) if the churchyard is in a community not having a separate community council, serve such a request on the council of the district in which the community is situated; or
(d) if the churchyard is in England elsewhere than the City and the Temples and is not in any parish, serve such a request on the council of the district or London borough in which the churchyard is situated.

No. 799, in page 150, line 32, leave out from the first 'the' to 'as' in line 33 and insert:
'authority on whom the request is served or the parish meeting'.

No. 800, in page 150, line 34, leave out 'notice' and insert 'request'.

No. 801, in page 150, line 36, leave out 'and, if that council' and insert:
'or the chairman of a parish meeting and, if that council or meeting'.

No. 802, in page 150, line 40, after 'council', insert 'or parish meeting'.

No. 803, in page 150, line 42, at end insert:
(4) Where before the passing of this Act a church council established under the constitution of the Church in Wales, in purported exercise of the powers conferred by section 18 of the Burial Act 1855 (maintenance of closed churchyard payable out of rates), issued a certificate with respect to a closed churchyard to an existing local authority, and that authority thereupon took over the maintenance of the churchyard, the authority's action shall be deemed to have been lawful for all purposes, and the authority for the time being responsible for the maintenance of the churchyard shall have the like duty with respect to its maintenance as a parochial church council elsewhere than the area subject to the Welsh Church Act 1914.

No. 804, in page 150, line 45, leave out 'the said Act of 1914' and insert 'that Act'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 211

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AND MAGISTRATES' COURTS

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 1121, in page 152, line 27, after 'committees', insert:
'and in order to regulate the procedure of, and the rights of persons to attend before and make representations to, such committees and to


transfer to the Lord Chancellor the responsibility for the payment of allowances to justices in respect of duties in the Crown Court'
I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be convenient to debate at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 1122, 1123 and 1166.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Carlisle: The purpose of these Amendments is two-fold, first, to enable the Home Secretary to make regulations governing the procedures of magistrates' courts committees and, in particular, the right of persons to attend before and make representations at such committees; and second, to transfer the responsibility for meeting the expenses of magistrates sitting in the Crown courts from local authorities to the Lord Chancellor's Department.
The regulation making power will meet the concern expressed in Committee by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), and raised later with me by the justices' clerks, that in some areas the magistrates' courts committee does not consult justices' clerks before reaching decisions on matters which directly affect them. We believe that this difficulty can be met by a representative of the justices' clerks attending meetings. Many counties, for example, Lancashire, already do this, but some counties do not, despite a recommendation to that effect from the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State undertook in Committee to look into the matter, and, as I said, I have since received a deputation from the Justices' Clerks Society. The Amendments are the result of our deliberations.

Mr. Oakes: I am obliged to the Government for accepting the principle in these Amendments. I have one point only to put about the regulations. May we be assured that the right of attendance of the justices' clerk will apply not only to the committee but to subcommittees? It may sometimes happen that the committee proceedings are purely formal rubber-stamp proceedings whereas the sub-committee is where the real work is done. It is imperative that the justices' clerk should attend the sub-committee to give the detailed knowledge which he has to that sub-committee rather than attend merely at the formal committee itself.

Mr. Carlisle: May I have the leave of the House to speak again? That point has been raised also by the Justices' Clerks Society. I agree that it is important, but it can be dealt with by the regulations. We shall consult the Society before making the regulations, and there is no need further to amend the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 27

AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO JUSTICES

Amendment made: No. 1123, in page 319, line 20, at beginning insert:
'In respect of duties as a justice in the Crown Court allowances under this section shall be paid by the Lord Chancellor, and in respect of other duties as a justice'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 1125, in page 320, line 42, at end insert:
'in paragraph (b) of that subsection for the words "county or borough" there shall be substituted the words "non-metropolitan county or metropolitan district", and in paragraph (c) of that subsection for the words "or borough justices out of sessions" there shall be substituted the word "justices" '.
This Amendment and Government Amendments Nos. 1124, 1126 and 1127 are all consequential, relating to Part X.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

No. 255, in page 321, line 16, leave out 'provincial' and insert 'non-metropolitan'.

No. 1124, in page 321, line 25, at end insert:
'11 A. In section 42(3) for the words "county or borough" there shall be substituted the words "non-metropolitan county or metropolitan district" and at the end there shall be added the words "or, if the regulations so provide, by the Greater London Council" '.

No. 1122, in page 332, line 12, at end insert:
'(6) In paragraph 1(7) of the Schedule, after the word "constitution" there shall be inserted the word "procedure" and at the end of that paragraph there shall be added the words "and any such regulations may also make provision with respect to the persons (other than the members, clerk and officers of the committee) who may be entitled to attend the meetings of a magistrates' courts committee and the rights of such persons to make representations to the committee" '.

No. 1126, in page 322, line 31, leave out 'county' and insert 'city'.

'No. 1127, in page 322, line 42, at end insert:
'(4) In section 126(1) of that Act, in the definition of "petty sessions area" for the words following "that is to say" there shall be substituted the words "a petty sessional division of a non-metropolitan county, a metropolitan district which is not divided into petty sessional divisions, a petty sessional division of a metropolitan district and the City of London" '.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 215

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO PROSECUTE OR DEFEND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 658, in page 155, line 26, after 'area', insert '(a)'.
I suggest that with this we should take Amendment No. 659.
These Amendments enable local authorities to assert or defend a public right in civil proceedings in their own name and without having to proceed by realtor action, that is, by joining the Attorney-General, and thereby give effect to a promise I gave the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) in Committee. Local authorities are competent enough bodies to bring actions in their own name and it is absurd to continue the formality in civil proceedings of bringing an action in the name of the Attorney-General.
This does not apply to criminal proceedings. While a local authority, as may an individual, may lay information leading to a prosecution in a criminal case and may either conduct the case, on a strict legal analysis the prosecution is in the name of the Queen, except certain types of case which are brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney-General, or a Government Department. This relief of a local authority from the formality of bringing an action in the name of the Attorney-General applies to civil proceedings, but not to criminal proceedings.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 659, in page 155, line 27, leave out 'or represent' and insert:
'and, in the case of civil proceedings, may institute them in their own name, and

(b) they may, in their own name, make representations in the interests of'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 221

INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 566, in page 157, line 25, leave out 'on payment of a fee not exceeding 10p.'. This Amendment stands in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). He calls attention to the ridiculous requirement that a person who wishes to see the minutes of a local authority has to pay 10p for doing so. This is rather farcical.
Of course if he wants copies, the local authority may charge him for them, but it makes it ridiciulous if he has to pay l0p merely to see them—I wonder whether we ought to charge VAT or entertainment tax. It seems to detract from the current emphasis on public participation in council affairs.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 379, in page 157, line 35, leave out from 'a' to 'and' in line 36 and insert
'body whose accounts are required to be audited in accordance with Part VIII of this Act and of any officer of such a body'.

No. 380, in page 157, line 38, leave out 'authority' and insert 'body'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 224

SERVICE OF NOTICES ON LOCAL AUTHORITIES, ETC.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1136, in page 159, line 1, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (3) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallallieu): We can also discuss Amendment No. 1137.

Mr. Page: Clause 224 provides a code for the service of notices on local authorities. The Amendments make this code rather more explicit and. at the same time, make clear that the code does not apply to a document to be given


or served in court proceedings. In particular, the Amendment provides that any notice required under any enactment to be served on the council, its chairman, or a specified officer shall be properly served if left at the principal office of the authority or posted to that office. But where the authority has special arrangements for a class of document—for instance, planning applications—to be received at some other office, then the document may alternatively be served there.
The Clause, as amended, will provide both for the uninitiated to serve notices where they would expect to serve it—at the town hall—and it gives legal cover to arrangements for local or decentralised offices which it may in some cases be more convenient both for the authority and for local professional men in regular contact with them to use for this purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 1137, page 159, line 3, leave out from 'be' to end of line 12 and insert:
'given to or served on a local authority or the chairman or an officer of a local authority shall be given or served by addressing it to the local authority and leaving it at, or sending it by post to, the principal office of the authority or any other office of the authority specified by them as one at which they will accept documents of the same description as that document.
(2) Any notice, order or other document so required or authorised to be given to or served on a parish meeting shall be given or served by addressing it to the chairman of the parish meeting and by delivering it to him, or by leaving it at his last known address, or by sending it by post to him at that address.
(3) The foregoing provisions of this section do not apply to a document which is to be given or served in any proceedings in court, but except as aforesaid the methods of giving or serving documents provided for by those provisions are in substitution for the methods provided for by any other enactment or any instrument made under an enactment so far as it relates to the giving or service of documents to or on a local authority, the chairman or an officer of a local authority or a parish meeting'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 226

SERVICE OF NOTICES BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1138, in page 159, line

23, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 on page 160 and insert:
'(1) Subject to subsection (6) below, subsections (2) to (5) below shall have effect in relation to any notice, order or other document required or authorised by or under any enactment to be given to or served on any person by or on behalf of a local authority or by an officer of a local authority.
(2) Any such document may be given to or served on the person in question either by delivering it to him, or by leaving it at his proper address, or by sending it by post to him at that address.
(3) Any such document may—
(a) in the cost of a body corporate, be given to or served on the secretary or clerk of that body;
(b) in the case of a partnership, be given to or served on a partner or a person having the control or management of the partnership business.
(4) For the purposes of this section and of section 26 of the Interpretation Act 1889 (service of documents by post) in its application to this section, the proper address of any person to or on whom a document is to be given or served shall be his last known address, except that—
(a) in the case of a body corporate or their secretary or clerk, it shall be the address of the registered or principal office of that body;
(b) in the case of a partnership or a person having the control or management of the partnership business it shall be that of the principal office of the partnership;
and for the purposes of this subsection the principal office of a company registered outside the United Kingdom or of a partnership carrying on business outside the United Kingdom shall be their principal office within the United Kingdom.
(5) If the person to be given or served with any document mentioned in subsection (1) above has specified an address within the United Kingdom other than his proper address within the meaning of subsection (4) above as the one at which he or someone on his behalf will accept documents of the same description as that document, that address shall also be treated for the purposes of this section and section 26 of the Interpretation Act 1889 as his proper address'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can also discuss Amendments Nos. 1139, 1140. 1141 and 1142.

Mr. Graham Page: Whereas the previous Amendment set out a code for service of notices on local authorities, Clause 226, with the Amendments, sets out a code for service of notices by local authorities. The Amendments rewrite the Clause to make it clearer and, in particular, they provide that a document may be served at any address furnished for that purpose by the person


to whom the document is sent. They limit the provision for service and set out a number of other reasonable procedures for the service of notices.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 1139, page 160, line 22, leave out 'served on the owner' and insert:
'given to or served on the owner or lessee'.

No. 1140, page 160, line 25, leave out 'thereof' and insert 'or lessee'.

No. 1141, page 160, line 27, after 'owner', insert 'or lessee'.

No. 1142, page 160, leave out lines 31 to 45 and insert:
'(5) If the name or address of any owner, lessee or occupier of land to or on whom any document mentioned in subsection (1) above is to be given or served cannot after reasonable inquiry be ascertained, it may be given or served either by leaving it in the hands of a person who is or appears to be resident or employed on the land or by leaving it conspicuously affixed to some building or object on the land.
(6) The foregoing provisions of this section do not apply to a document which is to be given or served in any proceedings in court.
(7) Except as aforesaid and subject to any provision of any enactment or instrument excluding the foregoing provisions of this section, the methods of giving or serving documents which are available under those provisions are in addition to the methods which are available under any other enactment or any instrument made under any enactment'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 228

POWER OF COUNCILS TO MAKE BYELAWS FOR GOOD RULE AND GOVERNMENT AND SUPPRESSION OF NUISANCES

Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 1169, in page 161, line 18, leave out 'non-metropolitan county' and insert 'district and'.
I think that it will be convenient to take the following consequential Amendments: Nos. 1170, 1171 and 1172.
The Amendments relate to the powers of councils to make byelaws for good rule and government. When this matter was discussed in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister was sympathetic to the idea that these powers should lie, not within the non-metropolitan counties, but with the district councils. The purpose of the Amendments is to give effect to that.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting these Amendments on the Order Paper. I hope that the House will find them acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 1170, in page 161, line 19, leave out 'and council of a metropolitan district'.

No. 1171, in page 161, line 21, leave out 'county, borough or district' and insert 'district or borough'.—[Mr. Arthur Jones.]

Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 964, in page 161, line 23, at end insert:
'and for the protection of their employees in the event of their being threatened, abused or assaulted whilst in the exercise of their duty by any person or persons'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this Amendment we will take Amendment No. 776, in page 161, line 32, at end insert:
(5) A principal council may exercise in relation to those premises used for the purpose of transacting its business the power to make byelaws for good rule and government conferred by subsection (1) of this section.

Mr. Jones: The object of the Amendment is to give public employees, particularly teachers, greater protection in the course of their employment from the consequences of assault. As the House knows, I am a member of the National Union of Teachers.
During recent years teachers in some areas have been experiencing difficulty with certain parents who go to their child's school and abuse teachers and generally cause a disturbance. The incidents can be summarised as follows: a parent who comes onto the school premises and beats up a teacher; a parent who charges into the classroom and makes a scene in front of the children; a parent who privately sees a head teacher or teacher and in the course of the complaint shouts at and abuses the teacher; a parent who refuses to leave the school and causes a scene.
I do not wish to create panic, but our society appears to be growing more violent, and our older school children are not averse to dealing their teachers hurtful hacks on the shin and powerful punches on the face. Sometimes they behave in an even more horrific way. In 1960 six pupils assaulted their teachers


and 38 parents and two relatives did likewise. In 1971, 38 pupils assaulted their teachers and 41 parents and four relatives did likewise. Those are only reported incidents. It is fair to say that 5 million children attend comprehensive and other secondary schools, and that there are 300,000 teachers in my union. Parental assault has been steady whilst child assault on teachers, albeit in a time of exploding school population, has arisen slightly.
To back up my case I will give one or two instances. At Bexley heath two boys in class punched the face of a school-mistress; she suffered delayed concussion, and a prosecution ensued. At Bristol a mistress was kicked as she struggled against her younger assailants; she suffered a miscarriage. Recently a teacher in Manchester received £500 after being stabbed by a pupil. A mistress elsewhere had a cut lip after being hit by a metal jug. Teachers face a real problem, and they should receive certain backing.
So much for recalcitrant pupils. But it is aggressive parents who pose the most difficult problems in schools. At a Liverpool school recently a head teacher advised an assistant teacher to administer corporal punishment. Reluctantly the assistant teacher did that. Later the child's angry mother arrived at the school. She, a heavy Scottish woman, boxed the assistant teacher's ears. As a result of the blows he became deaf in one ear.
Currently, the model byelaws for schools, which I am attempting to amend, issued by the Home Office, mention only headmasters and deputy head teachers. Young assistant teachers for various reasons are reluctant to prosecute. When this young man was assaulted there was no Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in existence. According to the Home Office model rules, a head or deputy head can require people to leave the premises. It is hard to prosecute for trespass when a young teacher, according to the model byelaws, has not the authority to order an exit. It is clear that employers should protect their employees to a greater degree than they do at present.
It is a fact that my union as long ago as 1961 asked for a change in the law in this respect. My union was told by the Home Office that a new local government

Bill was needed to change this law which many in the profession felt was unsatisfactory. I feel that the time is ripe for the Government to indicate whether they are prepared to change it.

Mr. Arthur Jones: May I speak to the other Amendment which has been selected, Amendment No. 776, which originates from the Greater London Council. The Amendment is drawn in slightly different terms from that with which we dealt in Committee. In Committee my right hon. Friend said he thought that our Amendment was drawn too widely because it referred to premises owned by the Greater London Council. It was intended to apply to council premises in which the Council's business was transacted. To meet the Government's point the Amendment now stands in that form.

Mr. Graham Page: I have great sympathy with school staffs and with the staff of local authorities who are threatened with abuse or who are assaulted in the exercise of their duties. But these Amendments are unnecessary, and this is not the right place to amend the law in this respect. The existing criminal law already provides protection against threats, abuse and assault and a wide range of penalties for such offences.
There is no good reason why local authority staff, whether they be teachers, or in the town hall, or in local government offices, should have more, or even different, protection from, say, civil servants, individual citizens, or even Members of Parliament. Byelaws would provide meagre protection. Clause 230of the Bill limits the maximum penalty for offences against good rule and government byelaws made under the Bill to £20. The figures given by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) show that £20 would be meagre protection. The criminal law provides for more severe penalties, where appropriate.
The Amendment is not only unnecessary but inappropriate. In both cases the good rule and government byelaws deal with nuisances affecting the community at large and not isolated sections of it such as local authority staff. Therefore, even if the provision were necessary, Clause 228 would not be the right place for it.

10.45 p.m.

I have sympathy for those who suffer violence of this kind. The good rule and government byelaws are not the right place to help. However, we are certainly prepared to discuss this further with local authority associations and individual local authorities to see whether there is any way in which we can help on this problem. The byelaws are the wrong place, but let us have a look at it from another aspect.

Mr. Barry Jones: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to meet the teachers' unions?

Mr. Page: Certainly. I meant the associations of staffs as well. If the hon. Gentleman will leave the matter with me in that form, I hope that we can make some progress.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Has my right hon. Friend dealt with the point about the GLC?

Mr. Page: I meant my remarks to be general, particularly in discussing with the GLC whether we can solve the problem without reference to the byelaws.

Mr. Barry Jones: In view of what the Minister has said, and the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1143, in page 161, line 27, leave out from 'if' to end of line 29 and insert:
'provision for that purpose as respects that area is made by, or is or may be made under, any other enactment'.
The Amendment concerns byelaws for good rule and government and for the suppression of nuisance, and makes it clear that if Parliament has made provision in respect of any matter a district council should not have power to make another and different provision by means of byelaws in regard to the same subject-matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 1172, in page 161, line 30, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 229

PROCEDURE ETC., FOR BYELAWS

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I beg to move Amendment No. 823, in page 162, line 2, after 'parish', insert 'or community'.
This is a drafting Amendment to correct the wording of subsection (3), which requires byelaws to be made under the common seal of an authority. The subsection should refer to community as well as parish councils.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 232

POWER TO PROMOTE OR OPPOSE LOCAL OR PERSONAL BILLS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 915, in page 163, line 42, after first 'or', insert:
'any local authority are satisfied that it is expedient to'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 825 and 826.

Mr. Page: The Clause empowers local authorities, other than parish or community councils, to promote or oppose private Bills. The Amendment extends the power so as to enable parish and community councils also to oppose Private Bills, but not to promote them. The Amendment implements an undertaking I gave in Committee.
Regarding Amendments Nos. 825 and 826, the Clause authorises local authorities to promote and oppose Private Bills and lays down certain requirements. One requirement is that advance notice must be given in one or more local newspapers of meetings to consider promotion or opposition. The Bill as originally drafted required 10 days' notice of such meetings. We amended that in Committee to 30 days. That is adequate when a local authority is promoting a Bill, but it may be too long in the case of opposition where a meeting is required to be called quickly to oppose a Private Bill. Consequently, we have restored the 10 days' notice of a meeting to oppose and left 30 days' notice of a meeting to consider a Bill which is being promoted by the local authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 825, in page 164, line 7, leave out 'thirty clear days' and insert 'the requisite'.

No. 826, in page 164, line 19, at end insert:
(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above the requisite notice is thirty clear days' notice in the case of promotion of a Bill and ten clear days' notice in the case of opposition to a Bill.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 233

PROVISIONAL ORDERS AND ORDERS SUBJECT TO SPECIAL PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 827, in page 164, line 27, leave out 'under this Act or'.
With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 828 and 829.
Amendment No. 827 merely removes words which are superfluous. Amendments Nos. 828 and 829 insert some words which were omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 828, in page 165, line 19, after 'Act', insert:
'which is subject to special parliamentary procedure'.

No. 829, in page 165, line 20, leave out from 'is' to 'by' in line 21 and insert 'so subject'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 235

FREEMEN

Mr. John Golding: I beg to move Amendment No. 274, in page 166, line 16, leave out Clause 235.

Mr. Speaker: With Amendment No. 274 it will be convenient to take the following Amendments: No. 256, in page 166, line 18, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

No. 257, in page 166, line 21, after 'freeman', insert 'or burgess'.

No. 258, in page 166, line 26, after 'freeman', insert 'or burgess'.

No. 1024, in page 166, line 28, at end insert:
'(c) the keeping by the proper officer of every district which, contains a place or the major part of a place of which there are Freemen a list called the Freemen's roll

for the place on which shall be admitted and enrolled by the proper officer any claimant to be admitted as a Freeman in respect of birth, servitude, or marriage, whose claim has been examined and established by the Chairman of the Council of the said district'.

No. 259, in page 166, line 32, after 'freemen', insert 'or burgesses'.

No. 1025, in page 166, line 33, at end insert:
'(2) Those entitled to enjoy the rights of Freemen shall include every person who, if the Municipal Corporations Act 1835 had not been passed might have been admitted a Freeman of a place otherwise than by gift or purchase, and every person who for the time being is—
(a) an inhabitant of the place; or
(b) the wife, widow, son, or daughter of a freeman of the place; or
(c) the husband of a daughter or of a widow of a freeman of the place; or
(d) bound an apprentice to a freeman of the place.
and these shall have and enjoy and be entitled to acquire and enjoy the same share and benefit of the here ditaments, and of the rents and profits thereof, and of the common lands and public stock of the place or body corporate, and of any property held in whole or in part for any charitable use or trust, as if the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, the Municipal Corporations Act 1882, the Local Government Act 1933, and this Act had not been passed'.

Mr. Golding: I move the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), knowing by doing so that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) and I will have an opportunity to speak to our Amendments. I am appreciative that I am speaking under the shadow of Owen Glen dower; therefore my comments have to be more brief than they otherwise would be.
I am also aware that the encroachment of the Celts means that there are fewer free Englishmen. This gives me the opportunity to speak up for the English, something which is too rarely done in the House.
I turn to the interests of 340 of my constituents in the loyal and ancient Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, who to my knowledge enjoy a benefit which is almost unique. These constituents are entitled by birth and residence to have their names included in the burgesses' roll in Newcastle-under-Lyme, which is published annually in November. They are thereby entitled to share in the


income arising from the rates and investments which derive from the original burgesses common lands. This year each burgess received £13.
Their rights derive from custom dating back to 1189 in the reign of Richard I. They are more antique than the borough charter, which is 800 years old next year, and more antique than their parliamentary representation. The burgesses were protected by the borough charter of 1235 and by the Magna Carta. They were also protected by the Municipal Corporation Act, 1835, and the Newcastle-under-Lyme Burgesses' Lands Act, 1859. I do not think that I am going too far in asking that what was provided in the Magna Carta should now be provided in the Bill.
I hope that the Bill will be suitably amended in another place to defend the interests of the burgesses of Newcastle-under-Lyme. This will not only please those who cherish ancient traditions but, on a personal note, will delight my good friend and comrade Harry Rhodes who showed me so much of Newcastle-under-Lyme during the bye-election in 1969. The least I can do to repay the kindness he showed me during that arduous campaign is to defend the rights of the burgesses of Newcastle-under-Lyme in the House tonight.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: As I understand that the Minister is prepared to make a concession on these Amendments in the other place, I shall not dilate on this issue, except to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who spoke about antiquity, is a mere new-comer in comparison with the history of York. The freemen of York go back for a long time—perhaps before time immemorial—though their parliamentary representation is not quite so distinguished as that of Newcastle-under-Lyme.
There was a grave omission from the original Bill in relation to freemen. It did not get any better when the Minister, introducing the new Clause which is now Clause 235, referred to an "accident of drafting". Freemen of ancient boroughs regard it as a great privilege and honour. To be overlooked by an accident of drafting was something of an indignity.

Mr. Graham Page: There was no accident of drafting anywhere in Clause 235. We were merely doing it in another way. It was a perfectly good Clause as it stood.

Mr. Lyon: I was merely referring to the phrase which the right hon. Gentleman used in Committee in referring to the omission from the original Bill. The reference caused some offence. I am prepared to forgive the Minister, because he has acted magnanimously and, I understand, is now prepared to concede in another place. I hope that the Clause which will be tabled in another place will make proper provision in respect of the property rights of freemen. I hope that it will be possible for freemen to find a way to commute their benefits so as to benefit the community at large. I am sure that the freemen of the City of York will take the hint.

Mr. Graham Page: I am sorry if my memory did not serve me correctly. I had always intended that freemen's rights should be protected in the Bill. Clause 235 as it stands empowers the Secretary of State to give that protection by order. I have had many interviews with freemen from all over the country, because their rights and status differ in each of the nearly 100 towns in which there are freemen. At one time I thought that the best way to deal with this question was by order where we could sweep up together all these rights and say that they should be preserved. The freemen were not satisfied with Clause 235 as it is in the Bill. I was happy to try with them to draft a new Clause to give them full protection in the Bill.
I am happy to be able to tell the House that we have nearly completed that Clause with our legal advisers and that we shall introduce it in another place. I should have loved to have the opportunity of introducing it here, because I feel so keenly that all the rights and status of freemen should be properly preserved. At any rate, we will get the Clause right with our legal advisers and introduce it in another place.

Mr. Golding: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 236

HONORARY ALDERMEN AND FREEMEN

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 660, in page 167, line 13, after 'allowances', insert 'or other payments'.
The House may think we are being a little mean. This deprives honorary aldermen of the right to expenses when attending civil ceremonies. It is really only a drafting Amendment.

Mr. Denis Howell: If that is what the Minister is doing, it is mean. These are people who have served the community for many years. They are elected because of that, and there is often an unofficial time limit for retiring. When people have given good civic and political service for a long time and are elected honorary aldermen, they should have their expenses met when they attend on civic occasions or at council meetings.

Mr. Graham Page: If they attended council meetings, or civic ceremonies as honorary aldermen, they would not be entitled to receive allowances as councillors. No honorary aldermen is entitled to receive that.
It is expressed as allowances and expenses, and it was merely thought right to add the phrase here so that it accorded throughout the Bill. The honorary aldermen do not receive expenses as such, but if they had to attend, on behalf of the council, some civic ceremony elsewhere they would be entitled to their expenses.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 240

POWER TO DIRECT INQUIRIES

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment 824, in page 168, line 35, leave out from 'to' or 'unless' in line 36 and insert:
'attend to give evidence or to produce any such documents'.
Here we are being much more generous. I am sorry the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) is not here. I would have had great pleasure in saying this to him because he raised the matter in Committee. The position is that if persons are summoned by a local authority to

attend an inquiry, they do not receive expenses unless they have to travel 10 miles. The hon. Member for Widnes tabled an Amendment in Committee to provide for expenses if they had to travel three miles. I said "Why not if they have to travel any distance at all?" That is why I put down this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 29

ADAPTATION, MODIFICATION AND AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 843, in page 326, line 7, leave out from 'enactment' to end of line 8.
This is a paving Amendment to a later group headed by Amendment No. 844, in Clause 250, page 178, line 38, leave out from 'to' to 'any' in line 40 and insert 'subsection (2) below'.
I move this and leave the rest until we reach them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 906, in page 327, line 15, at end insert:
'4A. In any enactment or instrument to which paragraph 1 above applies any reference to a representative body of a parish—
(a) as respects England, shall be construed as a reference to the parish trustees of the parish; and
(b) as respects Wales, shall be disregarded'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 841, in page 327, line 22, leave out from 'district' to end of line 25 and insert:
'be construed as a reference to each such area or, where the area is divided between more than one district, as a reference to each part of the area so divided; and
(b) in the case of the areas mentioned in paragraph 3 of Part IV of Schedule 1 to this Act, be construed as a reference to each such area'.
This is a drafting and tidying-up Amendment relating to references to urban parishes, which no longer exist.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 842, in page 327, line 29, at end add:
'or, where the area is divided between more than one district, as a reference to each part of the area so divided'.

No. 1004, in page 327, line 40 at end insert—
'6.—(1) References in any enactment or instrument to district audit, to audit by a district auditor or to professional audit shall be construed, in relation to the accounts of a local authority or other public body, as references to audit in accordance with Part VIII of this Act.
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, the audit of the accounts of any public body (other than a body whose accounts fall within section 153(1) above) which by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above are required to be audited in accordance with Part VIII of this Act shall, with respect to the financial year beginning on 1st April 1974 and subsequent financial years, be conducted—
(a) by an approved auditor if, immediately before that date, the accounts of that body were subject to professional audit, and
(b) by the district auditor in any other case,
and where paragraph (a) above applies the body concerned shall, by resolution passed before 1st January 1974, appoint an auditor to audit the accounts concerned, and section 162 above shall apply in relation to any appointment so made.
(3) With respect to accounts for financial years beginning on and after 1st April 1975 subsections (3), (4) and (6) to (9)of section 153 above shall apply in relation to any accounts to which sub-paragraph (2) above applies as they apply in relation to accounts falling within subsection (1) of that section, but as if the body concerned had resolved under subsection (2) of that section that the accounts should be audited as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above.
(4) If it appears to the Secretary of State that, with respect to any accounts to which sub-paragraph (2) above applies,—
(a) in a case where paragraph (a) of that sub-paragraph applies, no resolution has been passed under that sub-paragraph, or
(b) for any other reason neither the district auditor nor an approved auditor is for the time being appointed to audit the accounts, or
(c) the approved auditor who is for the time being appointed to audit the accounts is for any reason unable or unwilling to act,
he may direct that, with respect to such financial year as may be specified in the direction, the accounts shall be audited by the district auditor; and where such a direction is given, sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) above shall have effect as if, for that financial year, paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (2) above applied to the accounts: 
(5) Without prejudice to the sub-paragraph (1) above—
(a) sub-paragraphs (2)to (4) above shall not apply in relation to the accounts of a river authority or drainage board; and
(b) the audit of the accounts of those

bodies, with respect to financial years beginning on and after 1st April 1974, shall be conducted by a district auditor'.

No. 1118, in page 328, line 33, leave out from 'words' to end of line 34 and insert—
'from "borough, including" onwards there shall be substituted the words "district or London borough" '.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 907, in page 328, line 39, at end insert:
'(2) In Schedule 3 to that Act, in paragraphs 5(2)(a)(i) and 6(2)(b), for the words "county district" there shall be substituted the word "county"; and in paragraph 6(2)(c) for the words "such county district or London borough" there shall be substituted the words "district or London borough in which the track or any part thereof is situated" '.
Schedule 3 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963, conferred responsibility for the licensing of tracks for betting on the county councils. Under Schedule 29 of this Bill, this function is transferred to the district councils. The 1963 Act provided that councils which did not have the decision—namely, district councils—should have the right to be heard. Now the district councils will make the decision and, therefore, it is necessary to provide the right of hearing for the county councils.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 1009, in page 329, line 6, at end insert:

'Children and young persons

14. In Schedule 2 to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, in paragraph 6, for the words "Part X of that Act" there shall be substituted the words "Part VIII of the Local Government Act 1972" and for the words "section 219(c)" there shall be substituted the words "section 153(1)" '.

No. 1010, in page 329, leave out lines 17 to 19.

No. 1011, in page 329, leave out lines 30 to 33—[Mr. Speed.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1161, in page 330, line 1, leave out from 'words' to end of line 5 and insert:
'from "the sanitary authority" to "1887" there shall be substituted the words "any local authority for the area in which the land is situated or, in the case of a parish not having a parish council, to the parish meeting of that parish for the purpose of providing allotments under the Allotments Acts 1908 to 1950" '.
I move it with some trepidation in the presence of an hon. Member from Wales.


The Amendment deals with the disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales. We have found that there are a few parishes on the border, half in Wales and half in England, where the Church has not been disestablished yet. This Amendment achieves that purpose.

Mr. Barry Jones: Are any of these parishes in North Wales, and, in particular, those parts of East Flintshire which are adrift and separate—for example, Maelor and Marford and Hoseley.

Mr. Graham Page: The Amendment deals with glebe land. I do not think it has anything to do with the boundaries of Flintshire—at least, I hope not. I will write to the hon. Gentleman if it has.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 895, in page 331, line 32, after 'is', insert:
'in the first place where it occurs'.
I understand that it would be convenient to take at the same time Government Amendment No. 896.
These Amendments are consequential on changing the licensing powers of local authorities from counties to districts.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 896, in page 331, line 33, at end insert:
(3) in Part I of the Schedule to the said Act of 1967—
(a) in the second paragraph, for the word 'county', wherever occurring, there shall be substituted the word 'district'; and
(b) in the fifth paragraph, in the first column, for the words from the beginning to the word 'or' there shall be substituted the words 'A county or district, or'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 260, in page 331, line 48, leave out 'within the meaning' and insert
'as defined in paragraph 17'.
It is a drafting Amendment designed to give greater precision and interpretation.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 1163, in page 332, line 36, at end insert:

'Police

31. In section 18 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, for the word "Cumberland", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted the word "Cumbria" '.

No. 1146, in page 333, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 26 and insert
'following "certified copy" there shall be substituted the words "and that sum shall be reimbursed to the superintendent registrar—
(a) in the case of a registration district in the City of London, the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple, by the Common Council of the City of London;
(b) in any other case, by the council of the non-metropolitan county, metropolitan district or London borough in which his registration district is situated" '.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 244

CONSEQUENTIAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 830, in page 171, line 28, leave out 'during' and insert 'as respects'.

Mr. Speaker: With it we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 831 and 835.

Mr. Page: This is an Amendment to subsection (2) (f), which deals with the equalisation of precepts from the county on to the districts. It tidies up the subsection.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 831, in page 171, line 31, leave out from 'county' to end of line 34 and insert
'(whether the whole or part of an existing county included therein or a county borough so included) and which are to be determined by reference to the circumstances of those parts before that date'.

No. 835, in page 172, line 37, leave out from 'such' to 'to' in line 39 and insert
'thing shall as from that date have effect as if any reference therein'.

Orders of the Day — Clause 245

TRANSFER OF OFFICERS

Mr. Carol Johnson (Lewisham, South): I beg to move Amendment No. 421, in page 174, line 7, leave out from 'transfer' to 'he' in line 10.

Mr. Speaker: With it we shall discuss Amendments No. 422, in page 174, leave out lines 13 to 21.

And Amendment No. 547, in page 174, line 21, at end insert:




(c) that where such person is unable, within a specified period and for a fair price to sell the property in which he was living prior to the transfer, the authority to whose employment he is transferred shall either itself purchase the property or shall reimburse to that person a sum equivalent to the financial loss sustained by him; and
(d) where at the time of the transfer or within four years thereafter the person is required to work at a place other than that at which he worked before the transfer the transferee authority shall reimburse him for any removal expenses and any increase in travelling expenses which he may thereby incur, to such extent and for such period as shall be reasonable.

Mr. Johnson: These Amendments raise matters of the greatest importance to all local Government officers who will be affected by local Government reorganisation. The Clause deals with the transfer of officers and contains the essential provision that an officer's terms and conditions of employment shall be maintained. This has become common form invariably included in legislation nowadays. It is not only common form for public service employees but applies increasingly over a wide area of industry and commerce.
It has become a cardinal principle with the trade union movement that in all cases where employees are transferred in connection with a scheme of reorganisation they should continue to enjoy terms and conditions of employment not less favourable than those enjoyed before transfer. The Clause could and should have said that and no more. But it goes on to introduce an irrelevant and objectionable factor by envisaging that once an officer has been transferred his terms and conditions may be changed. Will the Minister explain why the simple principle which is generally accepted is now to be undermined?
There seems no valid reason why any doubt should be raised about transferred officers by the introduction of a reference to
new terms and conditions of employment
which quite clearly undermines the transferred officer's normal, natural and legitimate right to enjoy conditions which are not less favourable than those existing before transfer. It has been brought to my attention within the last half hour that in similar cases under the London Government Act, 1963, the use of the words in subsection 3(b)

…the scale of his salary or remuneration…are not less favourably than those which he enjoyed immediately before the date of transfer
did not prevent the new receiving authority from changing the grades of any particular officer so that he would obviously be prejudiced thereby.
I suggest, therefore, that the subsection is offensive and should be removed, and that is the object of the first two Amendments. Amendment No. 547 seeks to change the subsections of the main Clause.
11.15 p.m.
With regard to the first one, the Minister will, I think, readily accept that there will probably be a large number of local authority employees likely to be affected by reorganisation who are at the present time owner-occupiers of houses. If, as a result of reorganisation, those officers are compelled to move house in order to safeguard their employment, there will undoubtedly be many cases, particularly in depressed areas in Wales and elsewhere, where the prospect of selling their existing houses is quite remote. I would have thought it reasonably certain that cases of hardship are in such cases bound to arise, and it is to deal with that situation that I submit there should be a power written into the Bill to provide for such cases.
This could be done quite easily by an order or regulation made under the Clause so that in proper cases the receiving authority itself could purchase the house in question or, if this cannot be done for any reason, appropriate compensation should be paid to the officer transferred.
With regard to the new subsection, there is no provision in the main Clause which requires, in a case where an officer is transferred to work at a different place, an authority to reimburse him for removal expenses and increased travelling costs. This is no new principle and, indeed, there is ample precedent for my proposal. Such a provision has frequently been included in orders made under the Water Act, 1945, where, because of reorganisation, an officer is likely to be removed to another locality.
When the Minister replies, he may say that there already exists under the national scheme and provisions of service provision for payment for disturbance


and travelling allowances. But I hope he will recognise that those provisions were not designed to meet a major reorganisation of the character provided in the Bill. NALGO, which has given careful consideration to the matter, is definitely of the opinion that those are inadequate financially and are not sufficiently comprehensive to meet the forthcoming changes.
The Department has issued a paper on local government compensation in which reference is made to the need for reimbursement of reasonable removal expenses and extra travelling expenses to those who, instead of moving house, travel daily to their new place of employment.
I hope, in those circumstances, that I shall receive a favourable reply from the Minister.

Mr. Graham Page: In reply to the first question raised by the hon. Gentleman on the wording of Clause 245(3), I think he has misread the words and has read an "or" instead of an "and" or an "and" instead of an "or". I will not detain the House by giving an explanation of the grammar of the subsection, but I am prepared to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman afterwards. I give the assurance that if the hon. Gentleman is right and I am wrong I will see that it is put right in another place. I am sure there was no intention to produce the sort of case which the hon. Gentleman put to the House. In fact, his Amendment goes much wider.
These Amendments would have the effect of giving each local authority employee a legal right to retain his remuneration at the level existing at the time of his transfer to a new authority, whatever the duties he may be required to undertake with that new authority. This would create inequitable anomalies in salary levels between staff employed on comparable duties in the new authority, and could lead to pressure to raise salary and staff gradings to the highest levels found at the time of transfer, whether justified or not, within each group of staff in each of the new authorities, with inevitably inflationary consequences.
In the Government's view, the new authorities should not be fettered in the task of forming their new management

structure and settling their new individual staffing requirements, and certainly should not be fettered in terms of both numbers and gradings. To give the kind of protection envisaged in the Amendments would make it intensely difficult to avoid creating substantial anomalies.
It is recognised that there will inevitably be some people who will suffer loss or diminution of emoluments on reorganisation, but the right way to deal with this is by means of compensation and not by bestowing a right of artificial salary levels. We have provided the rules for compensation. Those compensation proposals have received a generally favourable response, and discussions are still proceeding on the detailed points with representatives of staff interests. We do not in any way want to be ungenerous or mean in these compensation proposals, and we hope that they will satisfy the staff associations when we have finally agreed the detailed points with them.
I am sure that that is the right way to deal with this matter. It is the way which has been adopted on so many occasions in the reorganisation of local government and other public bodies, that is, compensation for loss rather than a statutory right to continue at the same salary. I must, therefore, resist the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Carol Johnson: Although I am not altogether happy with the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is too late. I put the Question. I am sorry. Perhaps I put it a little quickly, but put it I did, and there we are.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1147, in page 174, line 22, after 'to', insert '(a)'.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we might conveniently discuss at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 1148 and 1149.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Page: These Amendments provide safeguards to staff of local authority associations affected by the reorganisation of local government similar to those already given to the staff of local authorities themselves. In consultation with us,


the local authority associations have agreed the Amendments. In fact, they requested that the associations' staffs be included in the Bill in this form, and I believe that they are satisfied with the Amendments. I hope that the House also will be satisfied.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 1148, in page 174, line 24, after 'Act' insert:
'(b) any prescribed association of local authorities the constituent members of which include councils falling within subsection (2) above, and
(c) any prescribed association of committees of local authorities the constituent members of which include committees of councils falling within subsection (2) above'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 246

STAFF COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

Amendments made: No. 973, in page 175, line 7, leave out from beginning to 'with' in line 8.

No. 1150, in page 175, line 17, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 18 and insert:
'within the meaning of the 1933 Act or this Act, a joint board on which, or a joint committee on which, a local authority or parish meeting are represented, an association of local authorities or of committees of local authorities prescribed under section 245(4) above, or a police authority, burial board or joint burial board'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 247

STAFF COMMISSION FOR WALES

Amendments made: No. 975, in page 175, line 42, leave out from beginning to 'with' in line 43.

No. 1151, in page 176, line 5, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 6 and insert:
'within the meaning of the 1933 Act or this Act, a joint board on which, or a joint committee on which, a local authority or parish meeting are represented, an association of local authorities or of committees of local authorities prescribed under section 245(4) above, or a police authority, burial board or joint burial board'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 248

COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF OFFICE

Amendment made: No. 1149, in page 176, line 42, after 'authorities', insert:

or of committees of local authorities'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 249

REMUNERATION OF EMPLOYEES OF EXISTING LOCAL AUTHORITIES OUTSIDE GREATER LONDON

Mr. Carol Johnson: I beg to move Amendment No. 517, to leave out Clause 249.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendments No. 852 to 861.

Mr. Johnson: Because of the lateness of the hour, there will not be adequate time to give this Clause the attention which it merits. I understand that it came before the Committee at a very late stage and was never considered there. It should now receive the attention of the House.
The first point to be made is that the Clause is opposed by all the trade unions associated in local government. That, it seems to me, is a bad basis upon which to build.
The purpose of the Clause is clear. It is to prevent employing authorities from making unjustified late increases in pay or grading in anticipation of, or prior to, the appointed day; namely, 1st April, 1974. That seems at first blush to be a reputable objective, but, and it is a big "but", the Government appear to be unaware of, or indifferent to, the fact that it could serve a different purpose.
It could encourage and might tempt some authorities to use it as a reason for not conducting normal reviews of establishment, or revising grading of posts, in instances of increased duties or responsibilities. I am not advancing any new doctrine. This is the view of NALGO, the union principally concerned, as has been made clear many times and as is well known to the Minister, who, by the way, did not think it necessary even to discuss the proposed Clause with the union most concerned.

Mr. Graham Page: To which union is the hon. Member referring?

Mr. Johnson: NALGO.

Mr. Denis Howell: I understand that there was no consultation with any unions


representing employees of local authorities.

Mr. Graham Page: Oh!

Mr. Johnson: That confirms my information that they were not consulted.
As long ago as October last, commenting on the consultation paper, NALGO stressed the need to avoid interference with normal reviews of establishments and applications for regarding, or the operation of existing provincial and national appeals machinery. What it fears and has cause to fear is that the Clause will create difficulties for staff who are now at a disadvantage because of below average grading of posts compared with other authorities merging to form a new council. It could seriously affect the moral of staff in the new authorities if such an inequitable situation were to be created.
NALGO has never adopted a hostile attitude to any provision designed to deal with the problem of what has been called the extraordinary award. Had it been called in for free discussion and consultation before the Clause was embodied in the Bill, it would strongly have urged that any action by a local authority affecting staff could properly be dealt with within the established joint negotiating machinery and not through an employers' agency, as proposed by the Clause—for that is what the advisory body mentioned will be, namely, the Local Authorities Conditions of Service Advisory Board.
For all those reasons, I hope that the Minister will think seriously about withdrawing the Clause in toto and will take up with NALGO and the other unions concerned the question of how to deal with the problems that they have in mind without destroying morale and ignoring the machinery which now exists to deal with these cases.

Mr. Blaker: I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about representations made to me by the chairman of the officers' side of the Joint Negotiating Committee for Chief Officers of Local Authorities, and I want to make one further observation arising out of a recent letter that I have received from Mr. Jolliffe. However, before I do that I should like to take this opportunity to speak of the staff of my own authority which, being a

county borough, will suffer more disruption than most other authorities as a result of the proposed changes.
I much admire the work which the staff have done and are doing in difficult circumstances. Mr. Jolliffe accepts that the Government have made some concessions on this clause but he says that he and his associates would still like to see something rather different substituted for the Clause, although he accepts that at this stage of the Bill that is not likely.
However, he has asked me to make this point. He is seriously concerned about the advice that the Local Authorities' Conditions of Service Advisory Board and the Department of the Environment seem to be giving to some authorities, advice that he and his associates regard as harsh and restrictive. He makes a comparison between this advice and the advice which was given by the relevant Department in relation to the notification procedures under the former prices and incomes policy, which was operated by the previous Government, the purpose of which was to operate a virtual freeze on wages and salaries. He takes the view, which, I think, is justified, that this is not the purpose of this Clause, which is rather to safeguard the future position of officers of local authorities.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into this complaint which I have received from Mr. Jolliffe, and, perhaps, give us some assurance upon it.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I was quite astonished at the allegation that I had not consulted NALGO on this Clause, that I had not discussed it with NALGO, and had not discussed with NALGO all the Amendments on the Paper. On two occasions I did, with NALGO's officers, in long interviews, at long meetings. I have discussed it with the clerks' associations. I have discussed it with all those concerned in the operation of this Clause.
This Clause is intended to avoid pay drift; that is to say, increases in salaries or gradings of any individual in local government service during the period before reorganisation. This occurred on the previous reorganisation of local government, particularly in the case of London. For any Government to have ignored it on this occasion would have been absolutely criminal. The Clause is


for the protection of the staff. If the staff of one local authority is given a privilege over all others in the same grade, then it is time the Government stepped in and gave a backing to those other local authorities which wish this not to happen.
This was the procedure we laid down in Clause 249 and which I have discussed so many times with those concerned. The procedure is as simple as we can make it, that the local authority employers' associations will require information from local authorities of certain increases in salaries. I have assured NALGO and the others concerned that this in no way affects normal negotiations on all staff matters or the normal negotiations on grading or any of their terms of service. It is restricted entirely to these exceptional cases where one authority is trying to jump the gun. There was one notorious case in the last few weeks. I wished this Clause had been in operation so I could have brought it into operation in that particular case.
The point here is we are giving a backing to the local authority employers' associations in preventing this from happening by a procedure of its being reported, if necessary after negotiations have failed, to the Secretary of State, who can make a direction, first, that the information be supplied, and secondly, that the increase in salary or grading improperly made should not take place.
The Secretary of State will only intervene in that way when he is asked to do so by the employers. He sets them to get the information and provide him with the information. He will only intervene after giving both sides the opportunity to make their case—and, of course, the staff side. I have given NALGO that absolute assurance. No action will be taken by the Secretary of State unless he is quite sure that the opportunity has been given for this to go before their council and for representations to be made to him.
The Secretary of State will intervene only upon occurrences which occurred before 1st April, 1974. This is entirely a transitional matter. Once the new councils have come into operation this does not need to go on any longer. The body which will collect the information and will negotiate long before it ever

goes to the Secretary of State will be the employers' association. I can call it, in brief, LACSAB. It will, however, be nothing more than a fact-collecting body in this capacity and then the matter will, if necessary, be reported eventually to the Secretary of State. It would have been quite impossible for any Government with the experience of what happened on previous local government reorganisation to neglect to lay down some procedure of this sort. The argument has, of course, been over the form of procedure.
I had hoped that I had satisfied NALGO with the Amendments which are now on the Notice Paper. I shall not go through them in detail because they carry out the sort of procedure I have tried briefly to explain. But I have tried throughout to draft the Clause in a form which will satisfy the staff associations, and in particular NALGO. I thought after the last meeting I had with NALGO that I had satisfied it and that it would be satisfied with the Amendments which are now on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Blaker: Will my right hon. Friend deal with my point about the advice which, it is alleged, has already been given by LACSAB and his Department before the Bill has become an Act and which, it is said, is rather harsh and restrictive?

Mr. Page: I do not think it is advice. It is the document which has been sent out by LACSAB stating the sort of information which it wants from the local authorities of increases in salary. It is not exactly advice. It is setting out the items on which LACSAB would require information.

Mr. Denis Howell: This is a very important matter of principle. I am sorry the hour is so late but nevertheless it is necessary briefly to try to confound what the Minister has said. I listened carefully to his remarks. Three or four times he referred to the employers' organisations by which this is to be decided. The right hon. Gentleman has a terrible abbreviated title for them. He calls them LACSAB. For the benefit of the ignorant, which includes myself, I should explain that they are the Local Authorities' Conditions of Service Advisory Board.
It is precisely that which gives offence not only to NALGO but to every member of the TUC which is a member of a national joint council. They all strongly object to matters affecting salaries being determined by the employers' organisation alone. As far as I can ascertain, it has never happened anywhere before. This is one of the matters of principle that causes them great concern.
Secondly, I must tell the Minister that what he regards as consultation does not accord with what we on this side think of as consultation. The history of this important Clause—249—is that it was tabled on the very last day of the Committee stage upstairs, which was 20th March. The first time the Minister met anybody—which was NALGO and not the other unions—was on 22nd March. In other words, the Minister's idea of consultation is to table a Clause on the last day of the Committee stage and then condescended to meet the trade union representatives two days after the Committee stage has been completed.
That is not good enough. It fixes for the first time salaries for some local government officers without the staff unions or the other unions having a right to have a say. There has been no consultation in the proper sense of that term. NALGO and the other unions affected are entitled to feel aggrieved.

Mr. Graham Page: I cannot understand what the hon. Gentleman is referring to after all the consultation I have had with NALGO officials. What sort of consultation does he say would be proper consultation?

Mr. Howell: Proper consultation, as anybody involved in industrial relations knows, is to call in the unions and discuss one's proposals with them in the formative stage, not after one publishes them

in an Amendment on the Paper of a Committee upstairs on the very last day. One does not consult people after one has decided one's policy. In a matter of good industrial relations, one consults them during the formation of the policy and before hard and fast ideas have been determined. It is not only the omission to consult which shows a fundamental failure by the Government to understand the purpose and practice of good industrial relations; but even after all the consultation to say "We shall have this matter decided by the Local Authorities' Conditions of Service Advisory Board"—by the employers, and not by the traditional means, which is the national joint councils, of which both sides of the local government service are members—

Mr. Graham Page: I never said that the matter would be decided by the emloyers. I made it perfectly clear that the Joint Negotiating Committees would have an opportunity to discuss it and the Secretary of State would want to know whether they had discussed it before he made any direction. It is wrong to say that the matter will be decided by the employers. LACSAB will collect the information.

Mr. Howell: If the right hon. Gentleman wanted the national joint councils to be involved, he should have included them in his proposals.
We on this side of the House regard this as a matter of important principle, involving proper industrial relations and trade union conditions of service, and I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to register that opinion in the Lobby.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 45, Noes, 98.

Division No. 307.]
AYES
[11.43 p.m.


Atkinson, Norman
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Probert, Arthur


Barnes, Michael
John, Brynmor
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Bennett, James(Glasgow,Bridgeton)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rowlands, Ted


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Stallard, A. W.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kinnock, Neil
Steel, David


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur
Thomas,Rt. Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McBride, Neil
Torney, Tom


Evans, Fred
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Urwin, T. W.


Foot, Michael
Molloy, William
Whitehead, Phillip


Gilbert, Dr. John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Golding, John
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)



Hamling, William
Oakes, Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. Donald Coleman.


Hughes, Rt Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prescott, John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Green, Alan
Normanton, Tom


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Havers, Michael
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Hawkins, Paul
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Atkins, Humphrey
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Batsford, Brian
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Benyon, W.
Hornby, Richard
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hon.Dame Patricia
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hunt, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott, Nicholas


Boscawen, Robert
James, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Sharples, Sir Richard


Buck, Antony
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jopling, Michael
Speed, Keith


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kershaw, Anthony
Spence, John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kinsey, J. R.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kirk, Peter
Stokes, John


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Knox, David
Tebbit, Norman


Crouch, David
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Loveridge, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Dixon, Piers
Luce, R. N.
Trew, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Maddan, Martin
Vickers, Dame Joan


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Madel, David
Waddington, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Eyre, Reginald
Miscampbell, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Moate, Roger
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Money, Ernle
Winterton, Nicholas


Fortescue, Tim
Montgomery, Fergus
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Fox, Marcus
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)



Gibson-Watt, David
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Morrison, Charles
Mr. Hamish Gray and Mr. Oscar Murton.


Gower, Raymond
Neave, Airey

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 852, in page 177, line 13, leave out from second 'to' to 'the' in line 17 and insert:
'consider any increase made or proposed to be made by an existing local authority outside Greater London in the remuneration of any of their employees.
 (2) For the purpose of enabling them to carry out their functions under this section'.

No. 853, in page 177, line 20, leave out 'appropriate Minister' and insert 'Secretary of State'.

No. 854, in page 177, line 26, leave out from beginning to 'employee' in line 34 and insert:
(3) If it appears to the advisory body that an existing local authority outside Greater London has fixed or proposes to fix for any employee or class of employee of theirs a rate of remuneration which, having regard to any recommended levels of remuneration formulated on a national basis by representatives of local authorities and employees of local authorities, is greater than that which the advisory body considers appropriate for that.

No. 855, in page 177, line 41, leave out from 'recommendation' to 'may' in line 43 and insert:
'then, after giving notice in writing to the local authority concerned of their intention to do so, they may refer the matter to the Secretary of State, and on such a reference the

Secretary of State, after consultation with such persons appearing to him to be representative of local authorities and of employees of local authorities as he considers appropriate in relation to the employee or class of employees concerned'.

No. 856, in page 177, line 45, leave out from 'which' to 'as' in line 2 on page 178 and insert:
'notice was given to them by the advisory body) to pay such employee or class of employees of theirs as was the subject of the recommendation and'.

No. 857, in page 178, line 8, leave out 'after' and insert:
'in the period of three months beginning on'.

No. 858, in page 178, line 15, leave out from second 'the' to 'and' in line 16 and insert:
'Secretary of State under subsection (4) above, they shall notify the Secretary of State'.

No. 859, in page 178, line 24, leave out 'appropriate Minister may' and insert: ' Secretary of State may, after such consultation as is specified in subsection (4) above'.

No. 860, in page 178, line 31, at end add:
'but no order shall be made under this subsection after the end of September 1974'.

No. 861, in page 178, line 32, leave out from 'section' to end of line 35 and insert:


(a) shall apply to the remuneration pay able to teachers by local education authorities, or
(b) shall empower the Secretary of State to give a direction requiring a local authority to pay any employee, or to make an order deeming any employee to have been receiving.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 250

LOCAL ACTS AND INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 844, in page 178, line 38, leave out from 'to' to 'any' in line 40 and insert 'subsection (2) below'.
I think it will be convenient to take with this Amendment Government Amendments Nos. 1152 to 1154, No. 845, Nos. 836 to 840.
These Amendments concern the interaction of Clause 250 and Part I of Schedule 29. They are mainly drafting and tidying-up Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 1152, in page 178, line 44, leave out 'Parts I and II of'.

No. 845, in page 179, line 11, at end insert:

(2) Subsection (1) above shall have effect subject to the provisions of—
(a) this Act, other than Part I of Schedule 29;
(b) any Act passed after this Act and before 1st April 1974; and
(c) any order made under section 244 above or the following provisions of this section.

No. 1153, in page 179, line 17, after '1974', insert 'or to their area'.

No. 1154, in page 179, line 18, at end add 'or, as the case may be, to so much of the area of the latter authority as comprises the area of the former authority or any part thereof'.

No. 836, in page 180, line 22, after 'above', insert 'the Secretary of State or'.

No. 837, in page 180, line 37, after 'to', insert 'the Secretary of State or'.

No. 838, in page 180, line 43, after 'to', insert 'the Secretary of State or'.

No. 839, in page 181, line 10, after 'to', insert 'the Secretary of State or'.

No. 840, in page 181, line 14, after second 'by', insert 'the Secretary of State or'.

No. 832, in page 182, line 10, after 'navigation', insert 'ferry'.

No. 833, in page 182, line 11, after first 'undertaking', insert 'any market undertaking'.

No. 834, in page 182, line 12, leave out 'or water' and insert 'water or district heating'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 251

EXISTING JOINT BOARDS AND COMMITTEES AND PORT HEALTH DISTRICTS

Amendment made: No. 1158, in page 183, line 34, leave out 'Subsection (1)' and insert 'Subsections (1) and (2)'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 252

COMMITTEES OF EXISTING COUNCILS FOR CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN MATTERS

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 985, in page 185, line 8, at end insert:
'(2A) The members of a committee established under this section may co-opt other persons to serve as members of the committee in relation to all or to one or some of the matters mentioned in subsection (3) below'.
This is a simple provision to enable the committee of existing authorities set up under Clause 252 to co-opt additional members once the committee is set up. These co-opted members may be appointed to serve for all or any of the committee's functions as set out in Clause 252 (3).

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 253

APPLICATION OF ACT TO ISLES OF SCILLY

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 1159, in page 185, line 28, leave out from beginning to 'providing' in line 30, and insert:
'(1) There shall continue to be a council for the Isles of Scilly to be known as the Council of the Isles of Scilly.
(2) The Secretary of State may make an order providing for the constitution of the Council of the Isles of Scilly and otherwise for regulating the application of this Act to the Isles of Scilly and may on the application of the Council make an order'.
This is a most important Amendment. Clause 253 provides for the general application of the Bill to the Isles of Scilly, which are not a part of Cornwall and are expressly excluded from the general reorganisation provisions by Clause 1.
The Amendment inserts a new subsection (1) making clear that the Council of the Isles of Stilly is to continue in existence.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 1160, in page 186, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'any' in line 2.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 254

ORDERS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 722, in page 186, line 8, after 'above', insert:
'or paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 or paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to this Act'.
The effect of this Amendment would be that the orders defining the boundaries of electoral arrangements for counties and districts for the first elections would be non-statutory orders.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 256

MEANING OF "ENGLAND" AND "WALES"

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I beg to move Amendment No. 1048, in page 186, line 25, after 'Wales', insert:
'subject to any alteration of boundaries made under section 64 above'.
The intention of the Bill expressed in Clause 256 is that after 1st April, 1974, Wales shall be defined for all statutory purposes as the area of the new counties established under the Bill and that England shall not include any area included in those counties.
However, there might be changes in the boundary between English and Welsh counties after April, 1974, under Clause 64. It is therefore necessary to provide that the definitions of England and Wales in Clause 256 will be subject to any changes made in the boundary between the two countries under Clause 64.

Mr. George Thomas: While I do not want to do an injustice to England in not making sure that she has adequate time to discuss local government, has the Minister of State now

announced that in future the argument about Monmouthshire being part of Wales is over, and that this statement makes it clear that Monmouthshire is part of Wales for good and for ever?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The answer is "Yes".

Mr. Raymond Gower: That is a most important announcement. It is quite consistent with the fact that towns with names such as Abergavenny and Llantarnam could not be anything other than Welsh.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Am I to take it that an act of annexation of this magnitude is to be carried through a sparsely attended House of Commons on the nod at five minutes to midnight on the same basis as Europe has annexed England? I wish to voice my protest.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 257

GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 471, in page 188, line 5, at end insert:
'local government elector', means a person registered as a local government elector in the register of electors in accordance with the provisions of the Representations of the People Acts.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

No. 977, in page 188, line 25, leave out from 'authority' to 'are' in line 26 and insert:
'and a joint board on which, and a joint committee on which, a local authority or parish meeting'.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 258

SAVINGS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1155, in page 190, line 9, at beginning insert:
'Except as provided by Part X of this Act'.
This is a simple tidying-up Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 259

REPEALS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1057, in page 190, line 22, leave out 'order' and insert 'instrument'.

10 &amp; 11 Vict. c. 65.
The Cemeteries Clauses Act 1847.
Section 10.

No. 821, in page 336, column 3, leave out line 21 and insert:
In section 1, the words from 'for the protection' to 'prohibited' or that' and from 'that no new burial' to 'case may require)'. Sections 6 to 8.

6Edw. 7. c. 44.
The Burial Act 1906.
The Whole Act.—[Mr. Speed.]

No. 1168, in page 339, column 3, leave out lines 55 to 59 and insert 'Sections 5 and 6'.—[Mr. Moate.]

No. 1081, in page 340, line 44, column 3, at beginning insert:
'Section 1(4)'.

No. 1082, in page 340, line 45, column 3, at end insert:
'In section 16, in subsection (1), the words from "in relation" to

20&amp;21 Geo. 5. c. 51.
The Reservoirs (Safety Provisions Act 1930.
In section 9, the words "or district", in paragraph (c) the words "or urban district" and paragraph (d)'.

No. 1164, in page 343, leave out lines 16 to 31.

No. 1084, in page 344, column 3, leave out lines 6 to 9 and insert:
'In section 3, the proviso to subsection (2), and subsection (3).
In section 4, the proviso to subsection (1), and subsection (2).
In section 7, the proviso to subsection (1) and subsection (2).
Section 8.
Sections 11 to 13.
Section 70(l)(a) and (b).
In section 77(2)(b) the words from "or, in the case of dispute" to the end.

8 &amp; 9 Geo. 6. c. 42.
The Water Act 1945.
In Schedule 3, in paragraph 1, the definition of "county district" and in the definition of "local authority", the words "or rural" '.

No. 1014, in page 345, column 3, leave out lines 3 to 6 and insert:
'In section 8, in subsection (3), the words "or county boroughs" and in subsection (4) the words "or county borough" '.

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 30

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 820, in page 336, line 12, at end insert:

Sections 6 to 8.

No. 1128, in page 337, line 26, column 3, leave out 'or' and insert 'nor'.

No. 822, in page 339, line 14, at end insert:
county council or" and subsection (2).
Section 18(5).
Section 19(3).

No. 1083, in page 340, line 46, at end insert:
'In section 75, the proviso to subsection (2), and subsection (4).

No. 1157, in page 343, line 4, at end insert:
In section 108(1), the words "and, if required by the Minister shall".
In section 126(4), the words from "or any five" to "rural district" and the words "or contributory place", in the second place where they occur.
Section 230(1).
Sections 272 and 273.
Section 306.
Section 308.
Sections 320 and 321.
Schedule 1'.

No. 1013, in page 344, line 29, column 3, at end insert:
'Section 91'.

No. 1085, in page 344, line 31, at end insert:

No. 723, in page 346, column 3, leave out lines 3 to 5.

No. 727, in page 346, line 12, column 3, at end insert:

Section 12(7).

Section 15(3).s

No. 897, in page 346, line 24, column 3, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 26.

No. 846, in page 346, line 36, after '172' insert '(1)'.

No. 847, in page 346, line 41, after 'election', insert:
'and in the definition of "local government area" the words "urban or rural".

No. 1015, in page 347, line 43, column 3, at end insert:
'Section 42'.

No. 1019, in page 347, line 57, at end insert 'In section 28(3), the word "rural" '.

No. 1129, in page 348, line 17, column 3, leave out '(b)'.

'15 &amp; 16 Geo. 6. &amp;1 Eliz. 2. c. 52.
The Prison Act 1952.
In section 19(1) the words "or borough" in each place where they occur'.

No. 1134, in page 350, line 18, column 3, at end insert:
'In section 123(1), the words "not a borough".
In section 126(1), the definition of "county" '.

No. 1003, in page 351, line 56, column 3, leave out '(4), (5)' and insert '(2) to (6)'.

'6 &amp; 7 Eliz. 2. c. 49.
Trading Representations (Disabled persons) Act 1958.
In section 1(5) (including that section as set out in the Schedule to the Trading Representations (Disabled Persons) Amendment Act 1972) the words "county borough" '.

No. 631, in page 358, column 3, leave out line 3.

No. 698, in page 358, column 3, leave out lines 17 to 28.

No. 1086, in page 360, line 2, column 3, at end insert:
In section 2(3), the words "or rural" '.

No. 1087, in page 360, line 3, column 3, at end insert:
'In section 40(2), the words "on the advice of their medical officer of health".
The proviso to section 51(1)'.

No. 908, in page 360, line 22, column 3, at end insert:
'In Schedule 2, paragraphs 1(3) and (4), in paragraph 1(6) the words from the beginning to "may be", and paragraphs 2 and 3.
In Schedule 3, in paragraph 6(2), in the definition of "local authority", the words "county borough" '.

No. 1130, in page 348, line 24, column 3, after 'or', insert 'a'.

No. 1131, in page 348, line 28, column 3, leave out from 'and' to end of line 29 and insert 'the words "out of sessions" '.

No. 1132, in page 348, line 42, column 3, after '44(1)', insert:
'the definition of "county" and'.

No. 657, in page 349, line 22, column 3, at end insert 'Section 69'.

No. 1145, in page 349, line 32, column 3, at beginning insert:
'Section 28'.

No. 1133, in page 349, line 40, at end insert:
No. 587, in page 352, line 28, column 3, leave out from '171' to end of line 55 and insert 'to 176'.

No. 1038, in page 353, line 18, column 3, leave out 'Section 55(l)(a)' and insert:
In section 55(1), paragraphs (a) and (b)'.

No. 1165, in page 353, line 19, at end insert:

No. 699, in page 360, column 3, leave out line 50.

No. 700, in page 361, column 3, leave out lines 30 and 31.

No. 720, in page 361, line 33, column 3, after '10', insert '13(1)'.

No. 1088, in page 361, line 36, at end insert:
In Schedule 11, paragraphs 3 to 10'

No. 1135, in page 362, line 52, column 3, leave out 'notwithstanding' and insert' shall have effect'.

No. 898, in page 366, line 25, column 3, at end add 'county'.

No. 701, in page 366, leave out lines 35 to 37.

No. 793, in page 367, line 3, column 3, at end add:
In section 82(4) the words 'or county borough, county district' and 'borough included in a rural district'.

No. 851, in page 367, line 3, column 3, at end insert:
In section 28(6)(a) the words 'subject to subsection (7) below'.

No. 792, in page 367, line 9, column 3, at end add:

Section 49.

1968 c. 65
The Gaming Act 1968.
In section 44(3). the words "county borough". 




In Schedule 2, in paragraph 2(2), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "the appropriate local authority" the words "county borough".




In Schedule 9, in paragraph 1(b), the words "county borough" '

No. 728, in page 368, line 56, column 3, at beginning insert:

Section 6(1).

No. 848, in page 369, leave out line 5 and insert:
'In section 12(1), the words from "and of which" to "Wales" '.

1971 c. 62.
The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971.
Section 6'.

No. 1189, in page 372, leave out lines 10 to 12.

1972 c. 20.
The Road Traffic Act 1972.
In section 35(5), the words 'and in this subsection "county borough" includes a London borough'.




In section 55(7), the words 'a county borough'.




In section 123, the words 'county borough'.




In section 127(2), in the definition of 'local authority' the words 'county borough or county district'.




In section 144(2)(a), the words 'county borough'.




In section 196(1), in the definition of 'highway authority', the words from 'the council', in the second place where they occur, to 'urban district'.




In Schedule 3, in paragraph 1 the words 'county borough or'.

No. 1106, in page 372, line 12, at end add:

1972c.
The Town and Country planning (Amendment) Act 1972.
Section 1
. In the Schedule substituted for Schedule 4 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 by Schedule 1, paragraph 3; in paragraph 8, in sub-paragraph (3) paragraphs (b) and (c) and the words "(joint or other)", and sub-paragraph (4); paragraph 9(2); in paragraph 11(1) the words from "and also" to "planning authorities" and the words from "or, as," to the end; paragraph 13; in paragraph 14(2), the words" or, as the case may be, of paragraph 13(l)(a) to (c) above"; paragraph 15; in paragraph 16, in sub-paragraph (1), the words "(other than a joint local plan)" and the words "and in relation" to the end, and sub-paragraphs (2) to (4); and paragraph 17(2)'—[Mr. Graham Page.]

No. 702, in page 367, leave out lines 15 to 18.

No. 1089, in page 368. line 4, at end insert:
Section 51'.

No. 909 in page 368, line 15. at end insert:

No. 849, in page 369, line 16, leave out '(3)' and insert '(2)'.

No. 850, in page 369, line 28, after 'and' insert:
'in paragraph 4, the words "rule 16 of the English and Welsh rules" '.

No. 1016, in page 371. line 3, at end insert:

No. 703, in page 372, line 12, at end insert:

Orders of the Day — Clause 260

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 1162, in page 191, line 7, at beginning insert:
'Paragraph 31 of Schedule 29 to this Act shall apply to Scotland but, save as aforesaid'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS IN WALES

Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to move, Amendment No. 580, in page 214, line 17, column 2, leave out
'The administrative county of Flintshire'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 581, in page 214, line 23, at end, insert:
Flintshire
The administrative county of Flintshire.

Mr. Jones: For those who do not know, the County of Flint is small. It lies in the north-eastern corner of the Principality. I express my views in the knowledge that local government reform in Wales is a package deal. If others are to move to seek independence for their local authority, it is legitimate that I briefly make my case.
For some years there has been an omnibus debate over local government reform in Wales. I would hazard a guess that not even an alliance of, for instance, King Solomon and the most respected Mr. Victor Feather—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Flintshire is a very important county.

Mr. Jones: An alliance between King Solomon and Mr. Victor Feather could not satisfy all of us in Wales as to precisely what sort of reform in local government we should ultimately have.
12 midnight.
In support of my case I will refer to the population figures and use them as a pointer to the future. Currently Flintshire has 175,000 inhabitants, but it is projected that by the end of the century there will be an additional 250,000. According to advance analysis of the 1971 census, 25 per cent. of the population are under the age of 15 years and four months.
From 1961 to 1971 the Welsh population increased by the relatively small figure of 104,000. During those 10 years, Flintshire, the smallest county in Wales, supplied 28,000 people. That is an indication of the accelerating population in Flintshire.
Flintshire lies adjacent to Greater Merseyside, and everyone knows it as the gateway to Wales. It borders the Wirral, which we all know is the constituency of the current Mr. Speaker. It is a prosperous and thriving community, albeit not without one or two problems. It is, too, an increasingly sociological partner of the North Western region and Liverpool. I have noticed in the last five years a great mushrooming of housing development in my constituency, and in particular large and quickly built new housing estates where people from the Wirral, Birkenhead and all over the North West have set up their first owner-occupied homes. They travel from the new estates to work in the car factories near Ellesmere Port.
There is no doubt that housing in Flintshire in comparison, for example, with Cheshire is much cheaper. There can be a saving of several thousands of pounds. That indicates that more and more people from England will come into Flintshire and set up home in the years ahead. They will be very welcome to come to the Principality and to Flintshire.
Flintshire has increasingly come to be regarded as a well administrated county. Nobody would disagree that the chief executive and clerk of Flintshire County Council is pre-eminent in Welsh local government circles. Under his leadership we have seen over the last few years a new and effective style of administration of a large and growing authority.
One of the happy things which occurred recently in Flintshire was that the Government decided, albeit at a late stage, to give the county the status of an intermediate development area. This reinforces my case, because it will be a stimulus to industry. We have already seen signs of this. We expect in the near future to see new technological industries come to Flint, making a greater attraction for more people to come and live there.
We learned today that the Central Electricity Generating Board, for the time


being at any rate, will not be allowed to build a nuclear power station on the banks of the River Dee at Connah's Quay. Some of us appreciate that there is now an increasing possibility of there being a crossing between the Wirral and Wales. That would further emphasise my point about the likelihood of a continuing great population explosion.
Still in the planners' mind there is the prospect towards the end of the century of something like a new town appearing on the Welsh side of the Dee.
A county like Flint can stand on its own feet in any system of local reorganisation in North Wales. We are an area of remarkable and phenomenal growth and explosion in population. There is no doubt that in 10 years' time the wisdom of these remarks will be acknowledged at least in my county. I should be grateful for the Minister's observations.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am glad that the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) has not in any except the purely formal sense moved his Amendment; because, were he to press it to a Division, I should be unable to support it.
I agree with every word the hon. Gentleman uttered, but this is one of the mergers which is acceptable to all concerned in the future county of Clwyd and which will establish a prosperous and viable and go-ahead county. Much as we all admire the magnificent achievement of the Flintshire County Council in building the new civic centre, that centre is of a scale more appropriate to the enlarged county of Clwyd than to the county of Flint by itself.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): The effect of the Amendments would be to take Flintshire out of the new county of Clwyd and to make it a separate county under the name "Flintshire". My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) agree with me that Flintshire is a very effective authority. I accept most of what the hon. Gentleman said about the county. However, the alternative he suggested would be much less satisfactory than the proposal in the Bill, which is that the county of Flint should be com-

bined with the county of Denbigh, with the exception of a small part of a vale of Conway which is to become part of Gwynedd and that, in addition, there will be a small part from Merioneth—the rural District of Edeyrnion. The combination is almost identical with the combination proposed in 1968 by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas). It was also the combination proposed in the 1970 White Paper.
The county of Clwyd, or rather the combination of these two counties, is a suggestion which goes back much further than that. It was recommended by the Boundary Commission in 1887–88. The four county patterns were put forward by the 1947 Boundary Commission. Those four patterns had, as a common feature, a merger of these two counties. The final proposal of the Local Government Commission for Wales in 1962 was for a combination of the two counties and the views expressed to me, since I made the final proposals, by the two counties are that both Flintshire and Denbighshire, while submitting they are effective authorities which could stand on their own, nevertheless accept these proposals.
The first reason why I submit that the hon. Member's alternative is not as satisfactory as the Bill is the size of population, which the hon. Member mentioned. The population of Flintshire is 175,000, as he said, but that is substantially below the figure of 250,000 which the Government adopted as a desirable minimum for authorities responsible for education and personal social services. 
I accept from the hon. Member—and it is true—that Flintshire has recently grown rapidly in population and rateable value. In the last 20 years, the population has increased by about 30,000 and I have every hope that this trend will continue. Even so, it is likely to be well beyond the end of the century before Denbighshire and Flintshire both achieve populations above the minimum figure of 250,000. Setting on one side the question of a Dee Crossing, that figure may not be reached by Flintshire before the end of the century and much later in Denbighshire. I emphasise that it is not sufficient to consider Flintshire alone, because if that county remained separate, Denbighshire would also have to remain separate.
The fact that their populations are expanding means that the responsibilities of local authorities are expanding. The county council responsible for this area must be as strong as possible. It would make no sense to drop the proposal for Clwyd with its population of 358,000, to set up two new counties, each of which would suffer the handicap of small size.
The second reason relates to boundaries, and anyone who knows the general geographical nature of Flintshire knows that one has a part of Flintshire—Maelor—which is away from the rest and Marford and Hoseley which are within Denbighshire. It would be odd, at the end of 25 years discussion on local government reform, to set up a new county consisting not of one or two pieces but of three unconnected slices of territory. There can be few, if any, counties in England and Wales more afflicted with territorial anomalies than Flintshire, and the proposal of the Bill has the effect of removing these anomalies. Every independent commission which has considered the county boundaries has recommended union of these two counties, from the Boundary Commission 1887–88 down to the Local Government Commission for Wales. It is indeed an historical accident that the two counties were not united in 1889.
12.15 a.m.
I think it fair to say that of all the county amalgamations incorporated in the Bill, this is the one which has met with the most widespread local acceptance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment because I could not possibly accept it. There is no doubt in my mind that the union of these two counties will be a very successful and effective marriage. That is the view of most of the people who are actively engaged in local government there. It has given me great personal pleasure to see the co-operation which exists between the two counties, particularly among the administrative leaders of the counties, one of whom, Mr. Haydn Rees, has been mentioned. They are working well together and are determined to make this an effective county. As they are working in such harmony, I hope that no element of discord will be introduced by the Amendment.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes(Anglesey): Without going into the substance of the argument, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how he justifies calling all these important commissions in support of his rejection of the Amendment when he totally disregards the recommendations of the commissions in relation to Glamorganshire?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Everybody who has looked at the local boundaries over a very long time has felt satisfied that the proper result in the re-organisation of Flintshire and Denbighshire would be amalgamation. The view of the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes), expressed in his White Paper of 1967, differed from the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) in his White Paper of 1970, and there has been constant argument about Glamorgan, whereas as far as Flintshire and Denbighshire are concerned there has been agreement and harmony.

Mr. George Thomas: The only reason I do not propose to pursue what the Secretary of State has been saying is that I think it utterly disgraceful that at this time of night we begin our discussions on the biggest upheaval in local Government in Wales for 80 years. I believe that we are being treated with the maximum of disrespect. I want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to know that we would have had plenty to say on this argument, but he knows the difficulties under which we labour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) has heard the argument of the Secretary of State and I know that it is possible for him to shoot the right hon. and learned Gentleman down in flames. But I think that perhaps my hon. Friend should now leave his Amendment to the mercy of the House and not continue it at this stage.

Mr. Peter Thomas: As my proposal for the county of Flint almost coincides with the proposal of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) in his White Paper of 1970, if the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) were to shoot me down in flames the right hon.
Gentleman and I would frizzle together.

Mr. George Thomas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking through


his hat because I proposed unitary authorities whereas he is proposing a very different scheme.

Mr. Barry Jones: I did not think that my innocent Amendment would provoke so many sparks. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) for his forceful intervention, and to the Secretary of State I would say that I think he knows me well enough to know that I never want to shoot him down in flames.

Mr. George Thomas: I would.

Mr. Jones: I would at times prefer to reserve for the right hon. and learned Gentleman a slower and more lingering fate. But in order to co-operate with my right hon. Friend, I will confine myself to a few brief questions. Will there be a crossing of the River Dee in the near future? Can the Secretary of State tell me whether there will be a certainty about the border between Flintshire and Cheshire so far as the River Dee is concerned? Is Shotton steel works likely to receive a £50 million capital investment programme in the near future?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Member has asked three important and pertinent questions and the answers to them will undoubtedly emerge in due course. It would be inappropriate for me to say anything today, quite apart from the fact that any answer I might give would have no relevance to the remarks I made as to the appropriateness of the union of Flintshire and Denbighshire proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Barry Jones: I think I can claim to have shot the Secretary of State down in flames. In view of the lateness of the hour, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Alec Jones (Rhondda, West): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not out of order on Report for a Minister to speak two or three times in a debate without asking the leave of the House to do so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It is in order.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to move Amendment No. 183, in page 214, line 22, column 2, leave out ', Carmarthenshire and Pembroke' and insert 'and Carmarthenshire'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it we are to discuss sub Amendment (a), before the first 'Carmarthenshire', insert 'counties of Cardiganshire'.

and the following Amendments:

No. 1190, in page 214, line 22, column 2, leave out 'Carmarthenshire'.

No. 661, in page 214, line 23, at end insert:
Cardigan
The administrative county of Cardigan.

No. 1191, in page 214, line 23, at end insert:
'Carmarthen The administrative county of Carmarthen'.

No. 193, in page 215, line 27, at end insert:
Pembroke
The administrative County of Pembroke.

No. 198, in page 217, leave out lines 11 to 25.

No. 208, in page 220, line 28, at end insert:


Pembroke



PK 1
In the administrative County of Pembroke: —the Borough of Haverford west; the Urban Districts of Fishguard and Good wick, Milford Haven and Neyland; the rural districts of Cemaes and Haverford west.


PK 2
In the administrative County of Pembroke: —the Boroughs of Pembroke and Tenby; the Urban District of Narberth; the Rural Districts of Narberth and Pembroke.

Mr. Edwards: The effect of the Amendment would be to remove Pembroke shire from the proposed new county of Dyfed and to allow it to exist as a separate county. Early in April I and some of my constituents presented a petition to the Secretary of State signed by 55,562 people over the age of 18. That figure is more than 78 per cent. of the electorate and is more than all the votes cast for all five candidates at the last General Election. The petition asked that the Government should change their mind and accept the proposal we are now debating. In a local opinion poll in 1969 on the similar proposals of the last Government, 79·4 per cent. expressed


their disapproval. Opposition to Dyfed has been strongly-held, consistent and long-sustained.
The county council, borough and district authorities have expressed their opposition. Virtually every local organisation has passed resolutions of a similar kind including the Conservative and Labour Parties, the National Farmers' Union, the Farmers' Union of Wales, the teachers' unions, NALGO branches and many of the parish councils. All five political candidates at the last General Election gave undertakings to oppose the scheme which was first advanced by the Labour Government and was taken up by the Conservatives.
One of my first actions on entering the House was to tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that if he persisted with it I would oppose it. I have done so consistently ever since. Government spokesmen defending the Bill in Committee have spoken in somewhat contemptuous terms about the way in which public opinion has been expressed or measured. They have belittled the polls and given greater weight to the views of the local authorities. In this case there can be no doubt. The people and their elected representatives are as one. If the Government persist, they will be building a system of local Government on the foundations of its total rejection by local democratic opinion.
The proposed county of Dyfed, the source of our hostility, is by any standards very large—nearly 1½ million acres spread in a triangle with two sides of 60 miles and one of 80. It represents almost 28 per cent, of the land mass of Wales. It is among the two or three largest authorities proposed for the whole of England and Wales and, unlike those other very large counties, it has no historic unity or great town or effective communications system that draws it together.
In the south there are two quite independent industrial areas separated by over 30 miles of countryside. The Port of Milford with its four refineries, BP jetty, pumping station, bases for oil prospecting and power station, has nothing in common with South Carmarthen but is an important independent growth centre in its own right. For a county with a population of just over 100,000, its con-

centration around the Haven at the centre of a natural communications harbour is an advantage of very great importance. The total population rises to over 150,000 for a large part of the year and to a peak that may be nearer 200,000 during the height of the tourist season; so that the resident population and the tourist invasion are growing steadily and are likely to be given a substantial boost by the arrival of M4 in three or four years from now.
Pembrokeshire's rateable value is already about £4½ million. By the time that the present construction projects are completed it is expected to be over £5½ million. It would provide a rateable value per head in excess of £55, which is high by the standard of any local authority in England and Wales. Already the county is reaching the point where it is completely independent of rate support grant and these estimates take no account of the exciting prospects opened up by Celtic Sea Oil exploration.
The removal of Pembroke shire from Dyfed would leave Carmarthen and Cardigan together as a new county which by size, rateable value and population would be virtually a twin of Gwynedd.
In giving the House these basic facts, I have laid emphasis on the size of Dyfed and the distances involved. The bus service has virtually ceased and cannot be treated seriously as a link between the counties. The railway service is restricted. The roads are acutely congested in summer and travelling times are so considerable that they will be an immense handicap to councillors, making virtually impossible representation of a kind that we would all like to see in local government. I find it hard to believe that it is conducive to good local government that councillors in North Cardigan should be involved in the affairs of Angle 90miles away by road, more than the distance from London to Salisbury or from this House to Coventry.
The area then is very large. The distances are great. But I freely concede that those factors may by themselves be not decisive and the Government can point to other examples which are at least comparable. Size and distance become critical when they are reinforced by other causes of division—in the case of the Isle of Wight, for example, by the


problem of communication across the water. When such additional causes of division exist—and they exist in West Wales—we are in danger of creating not a new unity but something which is inherently unstable and has within itself the seeds of its own destruction.
The Government wisely observed in their English White Paper:
Local authority areas should be related to areas within which people have a common interest through living in a recognisable community, through the links of employment, shopping or social activities, or through history and tradition.
The Scottish White Paper added patterns of education to that list, and pointed to a coherence of interest around the main centres of population by reference to which the top tier authorities should be defined.
12.30 a.m.
Mr. Senior, in his dissenting Memorandum to the Redcliffe-Maud Report, elaborated and gave emphasis to the same theme when he said in para. 206:
What this means is not that the distance between the furthest corner of the unit and its administrative centre should be kept within a predetermined mileage but that its administrative centre should be in the same place as the shops and offices with which nearly every citizen is likely at some time to have occasion to deal".
or, as he said of the social services:
…where the patterns of settlement, communications and activity have treated a coherent town district embracing anything over 100,000 people, the sacrifice of that unit's convenience and democratic viability by its amalgamation with a neighbouring unit, merely to obtain a predetermined population size, is unlikely to be compensated by any greater efficiency…
I go further. I believe that such an amalgamation may have within it the seeds of catastrophe, not just because there will be waste, inconvenience and the competition of different interests—though all these will exist and will be damaging—but because people will blame every weakness in performance, every decision with which they disagree, on those in the remote centre where they have no contact. To inconvenience and waste will be added distrust and anger.
How right the Minister for Local Government and Development was when he said on 17th April:
What we want is interest in the area in which people live and work and participation

in the affairs of government in the area. For that purpose we must look to the past trend of development and how the area will develop in the future…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1972; Vol. 835, c. 170.]
There is no common interest between Carmarthen and the main population centres of Pembrokeshire. There is no recognisable community. There tre virtually no links of employment, shopping or social activity. History and tradition drive us apart. Our industrial future, as the Welsh Council has advised the Government, is destined to be separate.
For most of us in Pembrokeshire, Carmarthen is a traffic jam on the way to somewhere else, or a railway station on the route to Swansea, Cardiff or London. Soon, it will be just another town—a very charming and delightful town—off the bypass to the M4. In a real sense, Swansea outside the boundaries of Dyfed is a more natural centre.
By the Government's own criteria, the scheme is an absurdity. Local Government is being taken from the people at a time when increasingly they demand that it be given back. The manner in which it is being taken was brought home to my constituents with a vengeance by the Home Office consultancy document on representation, which revealed that the representatives of Pembroke and Cardigan, even if they stand together, will always find themselves in a minority outvoted by those from Carmarthen.
The Government may argue that we must stop thinking ourselves separate and become a unity. But that idealistic concept defies the reality of our differences and ignores the strength of long established attitudes and loyalties. The fact remains that the main population mass of Pembrokeshire is widely separated from that of Carmarthen but will be controlled by it.
I have been dealing with the personal involvement of the people, but common interest and convenience are no less important for administration, and I turn to the principle on which the Government have hung the whole of their case, the need for a minimum population of 250,000 or so. If we accept that as a reasonable general principle for most parts of the country—and I do—we must none the less ask in each case whether it can be achieved without creating other


disadvantages more weighty than any benefits which it may confer.
Once again, Mr. Senior has made the point effectively. In paragraph 342 of his Memorandum of Dissent, he said:
If a minimum population of (say) 200,000 is needed for the economical employment of (say) a specialist adviser on the new mathematics, can such an adviser be economically employed at all in a part of the country where that minimum population cannot be reached without creating a unit so extensive that he would have to spend most of his time in travelling? And if he can, would the marginal disadvantage from the chief officer's standpoint of not having the full-time use of that adviser's services outweigh the very substantial advantage to councillors and citizens alike of haying a local government unit with a comparatively accessible centre?".
In the following paragraph:
The simple truth of the matter is that there are educational (and other) disadvantages inherent in sparsity of population. They can be remedied only by increasing the population of the areas affected. They cannot be remedied by joining sparsely populated districts together.
The Government themselves have accepted the point in their Scottish White Paper where in paragraph 51 they defend the decision to create a Borders region with a population smaller than that of Pembrokeshire by saying:
Although the population of the region falls below the level suggested by the Commission for the provision of the major services, these levels, as the Commission themselves accepted, were only a general guide, and population is not the only, nor always the most important, factor".
Having made that profoundly important admission, the Government very sensibly went on to point a way out of the dilemma:
Some of the least populous regional authorities proposed in Chapter 4 may not be able to provide at their own hand the full range of educational and social work services, for example in further education or in certain disabilities. However, the Government have no doubt that suitable arrangements for such provision can and will be made between those authorities and their neighbours".
I have no doubt that such provision can be made in West Wales and I challenge my right hon. and learned Friend to tell me why it cannot.
It is right that I should explain to the House why Dyfed is an administrative nonsense in which the creation of a population minimum of 250,000 involves far too big a sacrifice. In Dyfed we should

inevitably have people like Mr. Senior's specialist adviser on mathematics. Certainly in the organisation of our education and social services we shall face the need for the duplication of staff and we shall suffer from time and monies wasted on unnecessary travel. Either duplicate departments will be kept going, or there will have to be superimposed on top of the existing departments a completely superficial and unnecessary top hamper.
It is a matter of fact that the county planning officer of Pembrokeshire and his opposite number for Carmarthen find it necessary at present to meet not more than two or three times a year. The two counties have no common planning problem of the type that calls for day-to-day co-ordination. The industrial area of South Carmarthen is an integral part of the South Wales industrial belt and between it and the great oil port of Milford lie some 30 miles of open countryside.
The need for broad planning policies covering the whole area is not made out and it is strangely anomalous that the structure plan for the Milford area should be the responsibility of a county authority most of whose representatives will come from outside that area. Much worse are the difficulties likely to arise from the tripartite division of responsibilities between the county authority, the district authorities and the national parks committee in an area where the national park, occupying about one third of the county, is a fragmented strip quite heavily populated and with no clearly defined boundary in physical terms, a park which, incidentally, is entirely within the boundaries of Pembrokeshire. I find it hard to believe that the work of the planning committee and the national parks committee will be made easier.
I have taken the example of the planning department, but we have other hard earned experience to guide us. A previous Government, following exactly the same principal and with advisers convinced that scale and centralisation were the key to good administration, built a district general hospital at Carmarthen to serve the people of West Wales. My right hon. and learned Friend, perhaps still more my hon. Friend the Minister of State, knows the consequences full well. Doctors and patients were forced


to spend unnecessary and often painful hours in travel, and the cost in discomfort, inconvenience and fares produced a public outcry, to which the Government had to respond by setting up a special departmental committee of doctors. Today we are to have the general district hospital we should have had in the first place. The factors which led to that situation are exactly the same as those we face in local government. We have had a trial run. The people of Pembroke have borne the burden of this unhappy experiment, and now the Government persist with the same folly of that action, and they do so though common sense indicates that personal health and welfare services should be organised in areas which can most conveniently be served by the general district hospital.
To reach this magic 250,000 the Government have thrown overboard community of interest, they have ignored administrative convenience, and they have fallen back on the feeble and unworthy argument that they do not want to create a precedent. Yet the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) reminded the Minister for Local Government on 17th April that precedents should not worry him, and he added that the Bill is
riddled with precedents fighting precedents from one Clause to another."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1972; Vol. 835, c. 82.]
If the Minister did not fully acknowledge that, he went far enough for me when he declared that
we have pretty sound principles but will break them if necessary when it really is practicable to do so"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1972; Vol. 835, c. 87.]
Of course the Government, to their credit, have done so and propose to do so again. That remark was made by my right hon. Friend when he announced a concession to the Isle of Wight, an island with a population and rateable value virtually identical with that of Pembroke. The Secretary of State for Scotland proposes to create in the Borders a region with a population of 96,000 and a rateable value half that of Pembroke, while the example of Powys with a population of 100,000 and rateable value of £2½ million is now familiar to everyone. The Borders the Isle of Wight and Powys provide all the precedents my right hon. and learned Friend needs.
I believe I have given adequate reasons already why Pembrokeshire justifies

another exception, but there is one other very special matter to which I wish to refer. It is one which I think my right hon. and learned Friend will agree with me we have not overplayed. It is one which his predecessor understands as well as he. It is the problem of language.
We have not used this, as we might have done, as the keystone of our campaign—for the very good reason that it is a sensitive matter and we have been anxious to say nothing which could disturb the almost perfect harmony which exists between the two parts of Pembrokeshire—the Welsh and English. I do so now because I fear that the Government's proposals could disastrously jeopardise that harmony with consequences which could spread far beyond the borders of my constituency.
For the benefit of English Members I will explain that for many centuries, from the time the Normans first built the great castle of Pembroke, the county has been divided by a line—the landskar—to the north of which the language was Welsh and to the south English. The great bulk of the population, 75 per cent. or so, are English speaking and live in the south, but as the result of 700 or 800years of experience the two peoples have come to understand and respect each other, have learned to live together in harmony, together taking a pride in a county which they rightly regard as second to none.
There is now a fear that that delicate balance will be upset and a predominantly Welsh speaking authority will impose itself on the English-speaking south. This may not be so, but people fear that there will be an insistence on Welsh-speaking officials, and they fear the consequences upon industrial development and the population it is attracting from outside.
They fear, above all, the effects on education. At the present time out of nearly 500 primary teachers in Pembrokeshire only 180 are bilingual. In the words of a director of education to the Secretary of State:
There is a real anxiety on the part of teachers in the south of the county that if Pembrokeshire is joined to what they regard as a massive 'Welsh' authority their job and career prospects will be seriously jeopardised and that they will be in danger of being driven out from south Pembrokeshire altogether.

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Mr. Edwards: That is the view of a responsible director of education and I think the House should hear it:
This is not to gainsay the fact that Dyfed might well pursue enlightened policies in this matter, but the point is that a fear exists that only bilingual candidates will be considered for teaching appointments. There is the related point that if the declared language policy in schools of the new Dyfed authority insisted on the teaching of Welsh to all pupils there would undoubtedly be intense opposition from South Pembrokeshire.
There are implications in the situation for Dyfed also and I said that if I were an officer in Carmarthenshire or Cardiganshire I would advise those authorities to keep Pembrokeshire out of Dyfed. To have within the one authority 75,000 people who are not Welsh in speech will pose problems for the new County of Dyfed and may have serious adverse effects on the future of the Welsh language in West Wales.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon. Member is tending to spoil what has been a reasonable case. Why should the English-speaking teachers of the proposed new Dyfed be at a lesser advantage than the minority of Welsh-speaking teachers in the new Clwyd?

Mr. Edwards: I am merely expressing a view of the education authorities in Pembrokeshire. It is a view not only expressed by the director of education and the teachers themselves. It is a view which has been supported by memoranda to the Government from the county associations of the National Union of Teachers and of the National Association of Schoolmasters. I do not believe that this warning should be lightly regarded.
The question of language on its own, without even the other arguments I have put forward, provides special circumstances that justify special treatment, because I do not think that anywhere else in Wales will be found this peculiar balance of population that we will have in the new Dyfed. Taken together, I believe that the case becomes overwhelming. There is so much to be lost and so little to be gained.
Pembrokeshire, with its good climate, its scenery and its coastline is a pleasant place to live and has never had any difficulty in attracting high-quality administrators. With its high rateable value, its expanding industrial heart, its growing population and tourist trade, its natural

cohesion and its sense of identity, it provides a good base for sound local government. That is what its people demand. That is what I ask this House to give them.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Although I would not go along with the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) in many of the arguments he put forward, nevertheless he must be congratulated on the force with which he delivered his case, although I felt that he marred that case by one or two of the arguments he chose to articulate.
I am reminded of the occasion some years ago when I heard a judge telling a very junior counsel who was making a plea in mitigation, "When I first considered this case I was minded to take a lenient view of it, but having heard what you say in mitigation I am bound to say that I take a totally different view." That may well be the conclusion that some of us on this side at least gained in relation to the hon. Member's speech.
Nevertheless, I believe that some very cogent arguments have been put forward, particularly the argument concerning the viability of the new county units. There can be no question of looking simply at population alone. That argument particularly is one which should be taken very seriously by every Member of the House.
I invite hon. Members on the Government side to exercise a robust degree of independence in this matter. Those Members who have stayed here well beyond the witching hour are certainly not mindless robots or parliamentary Pavlovian dogs to be summoned at the call of bells and ushered into a kennel of the Government's choice. I am sure, therefore, that the substantial arguments that were put forward by the hon. Member will not be lost to those of his colleagues who have chosen to stay with us in this debate.
As one who has the honour of representing the adjoining County of Cardigan, I support what the hon. Member said about the strength of feeling which runs the whole length and breadth of the County of Pembroke in this connection. He is correct when he says that this matter has joined those two communities—two nations as some have described


them—north and south of the line of the Norman castles in a way in which very few other issues have managed to do through history.
I pay warm tribute to the sincerity, competence and assiduity with which the campaign for the County of Pembroke has been conducted. There is in Pembroke a deep sense of community, and that is something to which we should pay high regard. It does not lie within the competence of Government to create a community; all Government can do is to try to generate conditions which make it possible for a community to live and thrive. But it lies in the terrible power of Government to destroy a community.
Secondly, it is obvious to each of us that the whole concept of Dyfed stands or falls on the question of the secession of any one of its constituent elements, and clearly, therefore, if Pembroke is allowed to secede, as the Amendment invites us to accept, there would be no Dyfed. I accept that the problems about reorganisation in this part of Wales, as indeed over the whole of Wales, are difficult and complex. When this plan was mooted in 1967, I had very grave doubts whether this was the best possible grouping. The temptation which confronted me then, and the temptation to which I succumbed, was to concentrate on maintaining the unity of Cardigan as a district authority. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) conceded that very early on.
Nevertheless, I was willing to regard the concept of Dyfed against the background of what the late Aneurin Bevan described as the necessity of bringing about local government reorganisation in the knowledge that it could happen in only one way—by edict—and that there would never be a unanimous acceptance of this by each and every authority, whatever happened to it. The success, and indeed the very possibility of that operation, is completely jeopardised if we allow secession of the nature proposed by the Amendment.
If therefore Pembrokeshire were allowed to secede—and I concede that the case appeals very greatly to me, as it does I am sure to many other right hon. and hon. Members—the position of my County of Cardigan as a satellite of Carmarthen would be utterly intolerable. I

do not say that in the belief that we would be unjustly treated on account of any malevolence on the part of our neighbours in Carmarthen. Nevertheless, there would be clearly an imbalance which would make such a situation of subjugation practically inevitable.
The point has been made that the totality of voting strength for Carmarthen on the Dyfed County Council would be 41. The total number of representatives from both Cardiganshire and Pembrokeshire would be only 38. If one takes Pembrokeshire out, only 15 would be representing the county of Cardigan. This is not an empire-building engendered by the efforts of Carmarthenshire; this is what the Government say is a balanced way of bringing about an amalgamation of those counties. But that would be the antithesis of balance, the complete negation of any equitable and reasonable relationship between the county of Cardigan and the county of Carmarthen.
Therefore, if Pembrokeshire goes—and I am impressed by the main argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman—clearly the right of Cardiganshire also to secede cannot properly be denied. Such a right is not based upon any consideration of pique or of narrow, local chauvinism and pride. There is merit in the consideration that the county of Cardigan has a case of which the House should take cognisance. There is no community in the whole of Wales that is so distinct an entity as Cardigan—

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Except Anglesey.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am prepared to argue with my right hon. Friend that there is as much feeling of insularity in Cardigan as there is in the Isle of Anglesey. Cardiganshire is the product of geography and history. That little area of land bounded by the Dovey Estuary, the Plynlimmon range and the Teifi to the south was a distinctive community in the fifth century, long before the warring tribes of Wales had coalesced and federalised into a Welsh Nation. Cardiganshire is older than Wales, and I say with great respect but with great pride, it is far older than the House of Commons. That is not merely an emotional appeal—[Laughter.]—I hear


noises of dissent from those who represent the more junior communities in Wales.
Running throughout the pleas made in the White Paper of 1967 and its successors and all the arguments put forward by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is the plea that this reorganisation seeks to serve communities. This is a community which could have its whole life and future stultified by the amalgamation that is proposed under the heading of Dyfed. I do not accept that Cardiganshire alone would be unviable. There may have to be a union of certain services. But the union of services is one thing; the amalgamation of the community and the subsuming of its personality in a greater entity is a totally different matter.
No doubt some people will say that I am exhibiting a bold streak of inconsistency in my arguments, having refrained from challenging the basic theology of the matter in 1968. But the 1968 proposals were not intended to be an instrument of gerrymandering, and there was in 1967–68 a far better balance between the functions that were ascribed to county councils and those which were reserved to district councils.
I ask the question that has been voiced several times on the Floor of the House and in Committee. How can we expect to find the best calibre of candidate for district councils when we allow those authorities only a miserable rump of jurisdiction—such unsalubrious functions as control of graveyards, slaughterhouses, public convenience and little else? How can we expect to find people to dedicate their best and most fruitful years to serve on authorities which have little authority at all in the life of the community?
The case has not been made out, nor can it be made out, for the maintenance of this amalgamation in the present situation. It is an unholy trinity of disparate and irreconcilable elements and I say it should be dismantled.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
It is quite clear that this interesting debate will last a long time and I think that

it would be convenient to break off now and to continue our discussion tomorrow.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this time of the morning is not the best time in which to debate matters which are of great importance to us in Wales. We all know that is not the fault of hon. Members that we are debating these matters at this hour. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is appropriate that we should adjourn now and, if he had not moved the Motion to adjourn, I would have done so.

Question put and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed this day.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clegg.]

Orders of the Day — RHODESIA (DETAINED BRITISH SUBJECTS)

1.2 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I wish to draw attention to the problem of British subjects illegally detained in Rhodesia. One of the first acts of the illegal Smith régime in April, 1964, was the arrest of Joshua Nkomo and a number of other Africans. Mr. Nkomo and his colleagues have been detained without trial ever since then.
When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition flew to Salisbury in the following year, in 1965, he saw Nkomo and other detained African leaders, but he did not demand that they should be released or put on trial as a condition of talking to the man who was about to declare U.D.I.
U.D.I. was denounced as an act of rebellion by my right hon. Friend. He believed that this act of rebellion could be brought to an end, as he said, in weeks rather than in months, and brought to an end by simple economic sanctions. This mistaken belief was doubtless part of the reason for the use of force being rejected. But there was no excuse for the public announcement of that decision, unless it is true that intimation was received from leading army officers that they would refuse to fight white men on behalf of black men, even if the whites were traitors


and the blacks were loyal subjects of the Queen. I should like to know whether there is any truth in that statement.
But, however that may be, it should have been a condition of the recent proposed settlement with the Smith régime that all persons detained without trial should be released. Instead, leading British figures from all sides of this House and of the other place have been content to go to Salisbury and hold discussions with these white gangsters while all the time upwards of 70 or so African men have been detained for, now upwards of 10 years, and they remain illegally held in detention.
One wonders at the sense of priorities of some hon. Members who can detect so easily the distant odour of Soviet persecution but seem oblivious to the stench under our nostrils for which we in the House are personally and individually responsible, every one of us—although none of us, except myself and the Minister who is to reply, is present on this occasion.
Shylock pleaded for the common humanity of the Jews. It now seems necessary to remind everyone that those with black skins are not less entitled to our compassion, indignation, protest and determination, though there is precious little sign of it. Do the Government believe that if the same public indignation had been seen on behalf of Daniel Madzimamuto, whose detention was declared illegal in 1968 by the Privy Council, and on behalf of other black detainees, these men would still be in gaol? I doubt it. The very selectivity of our compassion deprives it of force. We are like people calling over the fence to neighbours to stop ill treating their son but oblivious of the fact that in our own back garden our psychotic white relation is trying to beat to death his black brother. 
I do not overlook that our own practice of detention without trial in Northern Ireland diminishes our standing to rebuke Smith and his mob. But we could try. The Government are not trying. They have not raised a finger or uttered a whisper, let alone a shout. Mr. Josiah Chinamano, a man respected by all who know him, was detained with his wife without charge in April, 1964. Their five children were left without parents

to look after them. They were released in 1970, only to be arrested again earlier this year. Mr. Chinamano's health has sadly deteriorated.
I do not believe that the settlement proposals—whether or not the best which could be obtained—were worth while. I do not believe that any agreement with Smith which this country could, perhaps, reach and sign with honour would be worth the paper it was written on. It follows from the racist nature of the Rhodesian Front that it would overthrow any leader who put his hand to a civilised document or who agreed to release African kept in prison without trial.
What can we do? I do not believe that racist régimes or racists can be appeased. They could not be appeased when they were wearing the Nazi uniform, and they cannot be appeased now that their herrenvolk notions have been adopted by whites, some of whom once spent the finest hours that they are ever likely to live in fighting against the kind of doctrines which they now espouse in a different context.
The 1971 negotiations were a waste of time, but if they had not taken place we should not have had the Pearce Commission, and the naked facts about Rhodesia would not have been exposed for all to see. Above all, we should have heard the African voice loud and clear saying "No" to tyranny, as all men everywhere, given the chance, will always say.
What do we do now? Do we just keep on sanctions? This is what I want to hear from the Government arising from this discussion. If it is the Government's intention to keep on sanctions, that would be something, but it would hardly be enough. This is the crunch and we now either harden or weaken. In fact, there are some disturbing signs that the Government are moving in the direction of weakening rather than hardening.
Lord Goodman has said that if on the day of UDI the Labour Government had sent in a single platoon of Scots Guards by air and had caused them to march up the main street of Salisbury under a pipe band with instructions to arrest Smith, there would have been no opposition and that would have been the end of the Rhodesian rebellion. Whether that


is the case, no one can now tell. However, I still think that the Smith régime is something like a house of crooked playing cards which can be blown down by the deployment of force without the necessity for much combat. However, whether or not it is now too late for military intervention by United Kingdom forces, we should make it clear that we support those loyal British subjects in Rhodesia, of whatever colour, who seek to overthrow the régime which has usurped the authority of the British Crown in that country.
Sadly, I am persuaded that men unjustly imprisoned can seldom be talked into liberty. The Africans of Rhodesia will take their own freedom. The need, therefore, is to recognise that the sooner that occurs the less will be the bloodshed. The sooner the Africans of Rhodesia acquire their own freedom, the less serious will be the consequences to the white minority of that country. The longer the white minority hangs on to power, the more disastrous are the consequences ultimately likely to be for them.
If it is the case that we can no longer donate freedom to the Africans of Zimbabwe, we can at least not hinder their struggle. I hope that when a Labour Government return to power, they will recognise that their rôle is not to seek to impede what a recent Fabian pamphlet refers to as an inevitable revolution in Rhodesia.
If by a miracle those men detained in Rhodesia without trial were to turn white overnight and Smith and his men were to turn black, suddenly it would be found possible to rouse the western world and mobilise force for the release of the detainees. Within weeks rather than months they would be free. If that is so—and I have not found anybody to argue the contrary—we could have found ways and means to release them 10 years ago. It also means that the reasons why the Government are inactive is the colour of the men in prison. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman murmurs that this is not the case. If it is not the case, let the Government bestir themselves and not sit idly by while year after year men rot in camps, families disintegrate, and conviction becomes certainty in African minds that only by force can human dignity be restored to their people.

At present the African National Congress is pacific. Bishop Muzorewa wants to talk. Smith is the one who refuses to talk. At this point the British Government should be exercising massive pressure upon Smith, in the interests of his own people, to agree to a conference, which he refuses to contemplate.
What are the Government doing? Do they recognise their responsibility? If so, what are they doing to implement it? What steps are they taking to intervene in what is essentially our own back yard? It is our area of responsibility. This is what I hope to hear from the Minister. What are the Government doing and what do they propose to do? If they are not trying to influence Smith, if they are doing nothing to secure the release of the detainees, are they making representations about the conditions in which many of the detainees are held?
The settlement proposals were found to be unacceptable because, among other objectionable features, they provided for continued detention without trial of anyone the Smith régime cared to imprison. From the point of view of the present detainees, there was neither justice nor morality in the proposals. They were to be left in detention, many of them during and after the signing of a settlement. The fact that the proposals were rejected was a triumph for those in Rhodesia who would not agree to leaving their sons, their brothers, their fathers, their friends, and their leaders in detention.
Therefore, why are these settlement proposals, as the Foreign Secretary still states, on the table? Is the important factor that they remain acceptable to Ian Smith? Is not the Foreign Secretary interested in the fact that Lord Pearce reported that there was never a time when the Africans who rejected the proposals would have said, "Yes"? Does the Foreign Secretary have any concept of how Africans in Rhodesia feel when they have had these rejected settlement terms left on the table and when they hear the Foreign Secretary state that it still cannot be too difficult to reach a settlement with Mr. Smith?
Above all, can detainees have the slightest shred of confidence left in Her Majesty's Government when, far from it being apparent that the Government are interested in procuring freedom for those untried men who have stood against the


act of treason and against the illegal régime, it seems that the Government are conniving in their continued detention? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says "Nonsense". After the Chinamano and Todd arrests, Mr. Philip Mansfield, head of the Rhodesian desk at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was sent to Rhodesia. What did he do to secure the release of the Rhodesian detainees? Whom did he see? Did he make any attempt to visit the detainees themselves?
After Judith Todd was released from prison and detained at her home, why did the Foreign and Commonwealth Office state, through the British Embassy in Pretoria, that it would consider renewing her British passport only after she had been released from detention and after she had received the permission of the Rhodesian authorities? This loyal British subject was to receive the permission of the traitorious régime before Her Majesty's Government were prepared to renew her passport!
Why do the Government extend such grudging and limited concessions as, for example, permitting Miss Todd to enter the United Kingdom for six months and then requiring her to re-apply for a permit to stay here after that time?
Why, in short, do the Government appear to defer to the wishes of the Smith régime rather than do all in their power to secure the release of people like Daniel Madzimamuto, held for so many years in detention without trial and without charge? If the Government can do nothing else, they can at least desist from approving any illegal detention without trial in Rhodesia, as would have happened had the present proposals been accepted.
I do not seek to pretend that the situation in which we find ourselves is easy, that it was easy for the previous Government or is easy for this Government, but the posture and general direction of the Government attitude in this matter leave much to be desired. They appear to be moving in the direction of rowing along without hardening up against the régime which has nothing of which I hope any Government in this country would approve.
I hope that the Minister will say firmly that it remains the intention of Her Majesty's Government to oust the illegal régime as soon as possible.

1.21 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): I understood that the hon. Gentleman would speak about detainees, but he has made many general observations about the situation in Rhodesia and has expressed himself in strong and sometimes fantastic terms, none of which will do anything to bring about the period of sober reflection which, as all parties know, is the best thing for Rhodesia today to make racial co-operation easier.
It is not the policy of any Government to use force, and it would fatally increase conflict in that part of Africa to start war for that reason.
The hon. Member has impugned our sanctions policy. He knows that on 15th June the Secretary of State said that santions would remain at the status quo and he knows that we are not about to take off sanctions. The hon. Member referred to the colour question, but we had a full debate on 15th June. In making his remarks in this pejorative way, the hon. Member has done no service to those he seeks to help.
I came to answer what I thought was a debate particularly about detainees, and it might be useful to state the facts and to summarise recent events so far as I know them. I make that last caveat because, in the absence of any representative in Salisbury, our sources of information are limited.
Detentions are one illegality among many. They were already illegal at the time of the Labour Party Administration. First, I should emphasise that Her Majesty's Government are concerned about detentions in Rhodesia—extremely so. Those detained are British subjects and persons for whom we still have responsibility.
Our concern was reflected in the attention we devoted to this matter during the discussions in Salisbury last November: 
As hon. Members know, the proposals provided for the release of 31 detainees, in addition to the 23 who had been released since March, 1971. These 31 were, in fact, released, and some of them played an active part in the campaign for rejection of the proposals.
There was also provision for a special review of the cases of all remaining


detainees to see whether, in the light of changed circumstances, they could be released. The review would have been carried out by the existing tribunal, of which the chairman is a judge of the Rhodesian High Court, as soon as possible after the test of acceptability had been completed.
The recommendation of this tribunal would have been binding on the detaining or restricting authority. For the purposes of this special review an observer appointed by Her Majesty's Government would have been entitled to be present.
Unfortunately, this proposal, following the rejection of the terms of settlement, has been lost, along with the many other advantages that would have accrued to the Africans. It is ridiculous to call rejection of the proposals a triumph for the detainees. It is exactly the opposite.
I will now outline developments in the situation with regard to detainees in Rhodesia. The present detention orders are made under the emergency regulations which have been in force since 1965, although emergency powers have existed in Rhodesia since 1959. Each case is reviewed annually by the review tribunal chaired by a member of the Rhodesian High Court.
But the present situation is not a new one. Detention and restriction were first introduced by the Whitehead Government in February, 1959. At that time there were 510 detainees and restrictees. In February, 1967, 170 people were in detention and 450 in restriction. At the time of the "Fearless" talks in October, 1968, there were 133 people detained.
By March, 1971, the number had fallen to 116. Between March and November, 1971, a further 23 were released, and, in anticipation of a settlement, the Rhodesian authorities subsequently freed 31 more leaving, early this year, a total of 62 in detention and two in restriction.
Five additional persons were subsequently detained, including Mr. Garfield Todd, his daughter Judith and Mr. and Mrs. Josiah Chinamano. As the House knows, Miss Todd has been released and is now in this country. One other detainee has just been released to come to this country. Thus, we believe that there remain 65 people held under ministerial

detention orders. Of these many have been detained for a number of years.
In addition to those detained by ministerial order, a number of people were detained under 30-day orders made by the police while the Pearce Commission was in Rhodesia. About 1,700 people were arrested in connection with the disturbances that broke out in January, but we believe that most of them have either been released or charged and convicted of criminal offences.
Her Majesty's Government shared the particular concern of many people in this country over the detention of Mr. Todd and his daughter and of Mr. and Mrs. Chinamano. My right honourable Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made representations to Mr. Smith but no satisfactory reason for these detentions was provided.
As my right honourable Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in this House on 14th February, the Government regret these detentions and deplore the absence of any reason having been given for them. Lord Pearce was equally concerned about these detentions, but he failed to obtain any information from the Rhodesian authorities about their reasons for them.
Mr. Todd has been removed from prison and detained in his home at Shabani, as was Miss Todd prior to her release. She has been admitted to this country on a visitor's entry permit, which is the correct way in which she could come in. The six-months' period is the normal time, and no restriction on employment has been placed upon her because of the special conditions attaching to her difficulties.
The conditions under which Mr. Todd is detained have thus improved, and I understand he is now allowed to receive some visitors. Mr. and Mrs. Chinamano have also been removed from prison and are believed to be living near Marandellas, where they are not subject to the rigours of prison life and may be visited by their children. Naturally, we welcome these alleviations, though we regret that they continue to be deprived of their liberty.
Some concern has been expressed in the past about the health of Mr. Todd


and his daughter and of Mr. Chinamano. As far as we are aware, Mr. Chinamano's health gives no cause for concern at present, and, despite a rumour to the contrary, we now understand that Mr. Todd is well.
Her Majesty's Government are also concerned about the welfare of the other detainees. We have, as in all other spheres in Rhodesia, no power to ensure that conditions are such as we might wish. There is some safeguard, however, in the fact that the International Committee of the Red Cross is able to visit the detainees periodically.
In addition, Amnesty International provides funds for the benefit of detainees and their families through Christian Care, which assists detainees' families and provides training, rehabilitation and educational facilities, including correspondence courses, for the detainees themselves. This valuable help goes some way towards easing the worries of the detainees and making life in detention less frustrating and wasteful.
The hon. Gentleman said that we should demand very strongly the release of the detainees. I must point out that at the moment, because the settlement has not gone through, we are in no position to insist upon it. We have no power to insist. During the negotiations we devoted a great deal of time

to the position of the detainees, and some improvements were made. This has certainly made the atmosphere much more difficult for them.
Finally, I must again stress that Her Majesty's Government have no power to control events on the ground in Rhodesia and that, much as we may regret it, there is little or nothing we can do about detentions there. We believe that the proposals for a settlement represented the very most that could be gained for those in detention, and, had the proposals been accepted by the Rhodesian people as a whole, it is not unrealistic to suppose that the improved atmosphere could well have created a situation in which the Rhodesian authorities felt able to adopt a less restrictive attitude.
But, now that the settlement has been rejected, the outlook for the detainees is far from promising. We can only hope that the opportunity for reflection and consultation which is now available to all Rhodesians will bring about a new situation in which progress can again be made towards a generally acceptable settlement, which would in turn go a long way towards solving the problem of the detainees.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past One o'clock.